International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: siriuso on September 19, 2017, 06:03:23 PM
-
Hi dear all,
The bends shown in " My Working Notes"are tied in three Ends Starting Methods.
They are :
1) Cross Ends,
2) Opposite Ends, and
3) Parallel Ends,
which you will find the two working ends are all going to form overhand, underhand, interlocking, non-interlocking loops. These are alternative ways to get into the loop forms of the shapes b, d, p, q, 6 and 9 for some existing and new bends.
Based on these three starting ways, some new bends together with their mirror-images are discovered, recorded and posted for sharing.
Further to the posted " My Working Notes " and " My Working Notes 2 ", herewith are the "My Working Notes 3 ", the " List of Bends " and a diagram of " Variations and Features " uploaded for sharing. Here the link :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6M254Y0VsckVXMWc?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6bm1RQUNvTnhwTEk?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6enNvemJWTmxSaTg?usp=sharing
Wui-yuen Chan (yChan)
20th September 2017
-
Hello Wui-yen Chan,
I'm surprised no one has replied to your post.
If Xarax was still a member of this forum, he would have replied almost immediately.
Xarax and I had explored these types of bends in 2011.
I first started looking at #1402 (Reef knot) as a base and other superimposed bights/loops.
Xarax in particular took things a lot further a virtually tied every possible combination. If you search this forum using 'xarax' as a key word, you will find literally hundreds if not well over a thousand knots that he tied and presented to the IGKT.
...
By the way, nice work!
Keep tying knots and presenting them...
Hopefully Xarax will notice my reply post and he might contact me with details and links pointing to his work in this area. If he does, I'll post his reply herein.
Mark Gommers
-
Hi Mark G, thanks for the comments. Am waiting for more comments.
yChan
-
I received this email from Xarax:
NOTE TO FORUM MODERATORS: I hope that I am not breaking any rules by posting content from Xarax..I received his consent to post his email in this forum. I am of the view that Xarax has made some important contributions to our collective knot knowledge. I am not sure of the nature and extent of any open/ongoing or existing bans with regard to Xarax?
Bends
Of course I have examined carefully all the knots presented by yChang seconds after he presented them at the Forum ! However, I didn't have his e-mail address, to congratulate him, and tell him my opinion on them, in particular, and on the issue of bends, in general ( on which I do NOT consider myself a master, as Roger E. Miles is - I only have tied some good tight hitches and one secure TIB bowline... )
1. First, we have to tie every possible simple bend there is.
( I use the word ?is?/ =?exists?, but I could had used the world ?can be? / ?can be tied? as well ? simple knots are like basic mathematical numbers, shapes or theorems. We can say that they ?exist,? in a quasi-Platonic means, even if they have not been discovered yet by us, humans. We cannot say they are free, pure creations of the human mind, like art ? sooner or later, every sufficiently intelligent being, wherever and whenever in the Universe, would discover them ).
?Practical? bends, for many reasons, can not be but simple bends ? but ?simple? is not as simple a thing as it sounds! J Moreover, in knots ?simplicity?, even if it can be defined unambiguously, it can be estimated by different measures ? as I had tried to explain, in vein, in :
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3740.0
In this thread I claim that multiple re-tuckings, and multiple turns, and multiply ( helically ) coiled segments, reduce the simplicity of a knot, because they increase the complexity of the path the rope follows in 3-D - regardless how easily can the knot be set-up and dressed during tying, and how conceptually simple and easy to remember is its shape and/or tying method.
Therefore, we have to place some limits on the complexity of the ?practical? bends we use. Otherwise, the ?practical? bend, which is a tool a piece of engineering, becomes too complex, un-practical and over-engineered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overengineeringractical
2. Second, we have to test all those knots, and see which are secure and un-jammable.
( Ideally, ?maximally? secure, and ?maximally? un-jammable ). By ?maximally?, I mean under as heavy load as the knots themselves can withstand ? they should not slip, and they should not jam, even on the brink of their rupture.). And we have to test them on the ?common? rope materials AND on the very slippery materials like UHMWPE ? two distinct lines of tests ).
Needless to say, regarding the second task, nothing ( = 0 ) has been done? J
Regarding the first task.
Rioger E. Miles had thought that, by starting from the planar representations of bends, he would discover all the interesting knots that can serve as practical bends. However, he did nt consider two things :
First, that, oftentimes, the loaded knot acquires a very different geometrical shape than the initially set-up and dressed knot. Second, that identical planar representations can lead to different, geometrically, knots ( bistable knots ), and it is the geometry of the loaded knot, and not the topology of its initial tying diagram, which determines how the knot behaves regarding security and jamming. As, sometimes, knots with different, topologically, initial tying diagrams behave almost in the same way ( and we even call them by the same name, for example, the ?left? and the ?right-hand? common bowlines ), sometimes knots with the same, topologically, initial tying diagrams behave differently. Topology reigns only in mathematical knots ? in practical knots, it almost does nt matter.
It is no surprise that Miles did nt generate a complete catalogue if all the simple bends, and he just published tying diagrams and pictures of the dressed but yet unloaded of a few of them.
It seems to me that this over-estimation of the capability of the initial tying diagrams to generate all the simple knots is a common mistake ? possibly because we are accustomed to remember knots and ( one of their many ) tying methods together, we store them in the same corner of our brain, and we tend to confuse them? Noope, unfortunately, by starting from simple initial tying diagrams, and simple initial pre-bends ( the Reef, the Butterfly, etc. ), we can NOT discover all the simple bends there can be, and we can not produce a complete, exhaustive cataloguing and enumeration of the simple bends? And THAT is the task, all the knots that can be, not only some ?new? knots ( which may well have been tied many times in the past, but, just because they have not been members of a well-studied complete set of knots, and because they have not been tested, they have been forgotten?
I have tried to ?bypass? the complete enumerating and the testing phases by ?guessing? bends that would be easy to untie ? like the ?Easy to untie? bend, for example. How wrong I was? By actually testing those bends, under heavy or even moderate loading, all of my guesses have been proved so wrong. Many ?guessed? forms, during tensioning, change completely, even lose their initial symmetry, capsize, slip, become a jammed lump of material, you name it?
It is true that I have tied, and tried, most of the bends presented by yChang ( but not all ). And it is also true that, starting from simple, well known and easy to form configurations, and re-tucking them, one can discover ?new? knots. However, many ?re-tuckings? are tricky, and that is why they have not been explored systematically, and they have escaped the attention of knot tyers. The Ampersand bowline is just such a simple, single re-tucking of the common bowline, but it has not been found for many years. Also, I came to believe that this way of generating ?new? knots is like wandering in our desert of ignorance, hoping to un-cover something, but it is not the road we have to follow from now on. We are well beyond that point. We need our Mendeleev, a systematic, ?complete periodic? table of bends, based on some new concept, property, generating method, whatever, something that would produce all the simple bends there are. And then, we have to test them !
Under ?Xarax?, as well as under ? X1?, I have published some ?new? bends in the Forum ? with pictures, of course. yChang may search there for something identical, or similar to the knots he presents. He SHOULD also read Miles ! Also, he may find something interesting at :
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.0
As a present, for his beautiful work, tell him to read one attempt, similar to his, to discover a class of bends - in which he will find some of the knots he published.
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4445.0
In particular, I like the & bend shown at
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4445.msg29585#msg29585
But that ( 'like" ) means nothing ! This bend jams even by looking at it !
-
I received this email from Xarax:
NOTE TO FORUM MODERATORS: I hope that I am not breaking any rules by posting content from Xarax..I received his consent to post his email in this forum. I am of the view that Xarax has made some important contributions to our collective knot knowledge. I am not sure of the nature and extent of any open/ongoing or existing bans with regard to Xarax?
I don't see a problem in quoting Xarax (or anyone else with their permission) as long as the quote is relevant (as this is) and does not contain insulting or derisory comment. Xarax was banned from the forum for persistently making inflammatory remarks to and about other posters. This went on after he was temporarily banned and reinstated. The problem for Moderators is that although both of us check the forum regularly (and because of the time difference in our locations we can cover a broad timeframe) we can only act once a post has been uploaded by which time the damage may well have been done. If a responsible Forum member, such as agent_smith in this case, posts (as necessary edited) material sourced from a non-member then that would be welcome in my opinion.
Sweeney
-
Thank you Sweeney.
I am pleased that I have not broken any forum rules.
Mark Gommers
-
Hi dear all. Thanks for the comments.
I have not been here since mid 2011. I know I have missed a lot of your works. I am pleased that someone would let me know that some of my knots are discovered and have been mentioned before. In this respect, I suggest this forum should create a photo library for keeping the "Claimed New Knot". It will classify to categories of knots, date of entry and together with tying steps or sketches for members to search for and study.
I just come back here two months before my postings. I see that in some old threads "New Knots" photos were not come with tying method unless you ask. IMO, it is not the attitude to share with the public. A photo of loosen knot could not help any. We should share the tying procedure/methods and the finished knots. Let people try tying it and enjoy your findindgs.
yChan
-
Hi dear all, here are "My Working Notes 4". Wish to share with you all and comments.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6eFpnNlJicmFYRXc?usp=sharing
Thanks.
yChan
-
Dear all, I have make a big mistake in the ABOK#1425 in "My Working Notes". I will revise them accordingly.
yChan
-
Hi all, the notes are revised. The links are:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6M254Y0VsckVXMWc?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6bm1RQUNvTnhwTEk?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6enNvemJWTmxSaTg?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6eFpnNlJicmFYRXc?usp=sharing
Happy knotting
yChan
-
Hi siriuso,
I have received a detailed reply from Xarax about your work.
I have been acting as his 'proxy' but, I am somewhat reluctant to post further messages because some members on this IGKT forum are sounding concerns about me doing this.
I can send you a PM with Xarax email address (I'll check with him to confirm) - if you would like to transact conversations with him privately.
...
My personal reply to your post is as follows...
1425A is the actual 'ABoK' reference number (written as #1425A) for Phil D Smith's Riggers Bend (aka Hunters Bend).
The various loops you use as the basis for tying all of the bends are very interesting - Xarax (and initially myself) had explored this in great detail some years ago. I will try to dig up his posts/links to his posts for your reference.
It would be helpful if you could add commentary about the 'chirality' of your interlinked loops (eg 'left' versus 'right' chirality).
It is amazing what can be created from interlinked loops - as a starting base, and I commend you for the marvelous work that you have done :)
Mark G
-
Hi Mark G, formerly in my working notes, I have presented the other tying methods of ABOK#1425 as well as Hunter's Bend ABOK#1425A. Recently I found I was wrong about 1425 and have updated the working notes. Still you can see there are tying methods for ABOK#1425.
I have contact you in PACI.
Thanks for letting me know you and Xarax have been working on bends. I love bends also.
yChan
-
Hi dear all, in "My Working Notes", I have found one new bend is not new, it is Rxxx Bend (sorry for keeping it's name in secret and would be announce later). By the maintime you would be most welcome if any of you could review my bends and let me have your comments.
yChan
-
Hello yChan,
Have you seen/read 'Knotting Matters' #8 (July 1984)?
Article by Harry Asher starting at pages 2-8.
I would also suggest reading Harry Ashers book: 'The Alternative Knot Book' 1989 ISBN: 0911378952
Starting at page 22, Asher discusses what he calls 'sense' - ie, 'chirality' or 'handedness' of a loop.
And later, at page 55, he further explores the inter-linked loops (such as #1425A Riggers bend and then the 'Eastern Zeppelin bend').
Worth a look if you haven't already done so...
Mark G
-
Hi Mark, I have ordered all the KMs after I joined the guild in 1997. Thanks to the guild for decades later issued a CD. I just read your recommended articles about "sense" and "handedness" of a loop both in KM#8 and the "The Alternative Knot Book". I do not like to follow and use the code too. I have my own abbreivated code, such as Cr, Pa, TwB, Di, Ri to be used on my notes as photo taking is not available. I did my notes with photos and drawings to show the steps. They are clear to everyone.
On page 59, Eastern Zeppelin, says : ...The left-handed light loop is simply laid on top of the dark one...
I have classified the known bends as with interlocking loops, they are Alpine Butterfly Bend, Ashley's Bend, Hunter's Bend, Shake Hands Bend. But NOT Zeppelin Bend and Eastern Zeppelin.
I distinguish them by the primary composition of the two overhand/underhand loops whether they are interlocked or not interlocked. So I would like to know more about
[ ] inter-linked
[ ] inter-weaved/woven
[ ] inter-connected
[ ] superposed / superimposed
Thanks
yChan
-
So I would like to know more about
[ ] inter-linked
[ ] inter-weaved/woven
[ ] inter-connected
[ ] superposed / superimposed
Xarax is the person you need to correspond with...he is the one who ignited my interest in these technical definitions.
I can say that I had been analyzing the structure of #1425A (Riggers bend) in comparison to the Zeppelin bend in an attempt to understand why one structure jams and the other doesn't.
I had been corresponding with Xarax - and he brought these technical terms to my attention in an attempt to knock some sense into me :o
Having has some sense knocked into me - I came to realize that Xarax is on to something.
#1425A Riggers bend (to my eye) consists of inter-woven overhand knots.
Zeppelin bend (to my eye) consists of inter-linked overhand knots.
Now Xarax will of course correct me if i am wrong (he always does - he lectures me and basically scolds me for being 'retarded').
Anyhow, with the complexities and vagaries of the English language, i think the term 'inter-linked' overhand knots is possibly a more accurate way to describe the structure of the Zeppelin bend. Keep in mind that I am a native English speaker while Xarax is a native Greek speaker...so its all greek to me ;D
I am now waiting for Xarax to contact me... please standby ::)
Mark G
-
Hi dear all, here is "My working Notes 5". The link is :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1czsx2ScSIgfMClJ7du9vjWaANclF0rW7?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all, here is "My working Notes 6". The link is :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kH7nWyQ_BlSl17YINxUeUvTOAjtwRYfa?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Thanks for your work yChan.
May I suggest that you also describe the 'loops' in terms of 'chirality' (left-handed versus right-handed or S twist Versus Z twist).
For example, the zeppelin bend in your notes is constructed from 2 superposed loops of opposite chirality.
In contrast, the Riggers bend (#1425A) is constructed from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality.
I found the images in your 'working notes #5' easier to view than #6.
It would therefore be great if you could produce an alternate form of your working notes showing the relationship of bends in terms of:
[ ] loop chirality
[ ] inter-linked versus superposed
[ ] and whether if makes any difference if the chirality is revered
Mark G
-
Hi Marks and dear all, thanks for your comments and suggestion.
I think at this moment I will not make notes with loop chirality or handedness of the bends because each of these bends possess a few loop formations and of course will have different loop chirality descriptions. Such as Zeppelin Bend has 6 loops forms, Rigger's Bend has 8, Ashley's Bend has 6 etc.
Starting from the beginning, I aim to do the OTHER tying methods, they are differ from the known tying methods. I have had delivered some startings and tying methods in My Working Notes such as Ends Crossing, Opposite, Parallel, Twist, Spiral Drops, Pecking Duck ... These starts tying methods will access to different loops formations of bends. Also at the finished ends tuckings they are either in crossing, non crossing, twisted elbow or not, the results will be different and becomes another bend.
You may use my loops formations charts to name out their loop chirality. I always think that the chirality description applied to some loop knots and bowlines are most adequate as each knot is with one SP and one WE. But for the bends, apart from my mentioned reasons above (different starts tying methods) , each bend is with two SPs and two WEs and each may pointing differently to four directions North, South, East and West (64 sets are worked out).
About Bends of superposed are of Types 1 and 2, and the Bends of interlocked type are of Types 3 and 4. They are tabulated in my Loops Formations Charts of Bends in "My Working Notes 5".
You can find out the difference if the loops chirality is changed or reversed in the chart also. But except two bends, though the loops chirality is changed or reversed, the bend remain unchanged (but reversed and mirrored). They are Alpine Butterfly Bend and Y-lock Bend.
About the terms used to describe chirality, I prefer to use S twist loop and Z twist loop. For the terms S twist and Z twist are common and universal used in rope, cable and screw threads.
yChan
-
Hi dear all, here is "My Working Notes Part 7". The link is
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1e7zYivz-Tvw7ImQOYP8ArXXCmXsPvTbn?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
yChan,
Thanks for your good work...am having a look over this weekend (and no doubt so will Xarax!).
In reply to an older post of yours from last year....just some photos to illustrate why I favor showing the 'chirality' (handedness) of loops.
By reversing the 'chirality' of the loops (and reversing the crossing points) - you can make lots of interesting discoveries.
With #1425A Riggers bend, using interlinked L/hand loops (instead of R/hand loops) creates an interesting result (depending on the overlaps of crossing points).
I dont have a photo of inter-linked L/hand loops for #1425A...but will try to capture a photo soon and upload (to show side-by-side comparison with R/hand loops).
I think you are on a parallel path to me...
Xarax has done a lot of work on this topic - and it was he who first brought the importance of chirality to my attention during early development of my Bowlines paper (which I am presently reviewing and amending).
Mark G
EDIT NOTE:
Okay - I have had a look through almost all of your work - and you have put a lot of effort into it. We need more people like you doing this kind of research.
I would like to be critical if I may (sorry - peer review is what advances the science of knotting...).
A lot of your bends all come down (in the end) to loop chirality and crossing points.
If you follow your tying diagrams to their final step - the loops are either inter-linked or superposed - and the chirality is either the same or opposite.
Now - I do have an issue with what you refer to as a 'false Hunter/Riggers bend'.
Structurally, it ought to be referred to as a 'false Zeppelin bend'.
This is because the loops of a Zeppelin bend are superposed (and not inter-linked).
I can see why you like to call it a 'false Riggers bend' - because the shape does have some similarity to the true #1425A Riggers bend.
But, the fact is that the loops are superposed. Whats wrong is the 'chirality' of the loops. In a true Zeppelin bend, the loops must be of opposite chirality and the tails must point in opposite directions.
In your tying diagrams of what you call a 'false Hunters bend' - if you look closely - you will see (on the final step image) that the loops have the same chirality.
I am sure Xarax will weigh in here...
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the comments.
The FHB and ZB are both superposed loops. In my "Loops Formations Chart of Bends", they are in Types 1 and 2, but in different sets. FHB is in the set with SHB, 1453, HB and 1426. ZB is in the set with YLB, this indicates that superposed and inter-linked are taken places in Type 1, 2, 3 and 4. Within the same set, Type 1 to 4 have the same chiralities but loops are in either superposed or inter-linked (in two ways). Since FHB is in the same set with HB, that is the first point I named it FHB.
The second point is : the tying method (different starts) shown both in HB and FHB are similar with little difference. But you cannot do it with ZB. (see other tying methods of FHB and HB).
The third point is : the finished FHB and HB look nearly the same except on one side (because the loops superposed or inter-linked)
The forth point is : the collars of SParts of FHB and HB are the same on one side. But the collars of SParts of ZB are opposite/upside down. This is the main and most easy distinguish point to identify them.
The fifth point is : both HB, FHB and SHB have their own 8 loops formations (chiralities varied), but ZB has 6 loops formations only.
Upon these points, I named it False Hunter's Bend.
yChan
-
Hi siriuso and agent_smith,
even if I agree with agent_smith, I think we won't change our own minds so we should stop naming a knot/bend a "false something". I think we should follow D. Mandeville (who, as far as I know, first showed the bend in his Alphabend (see KM4 or KM18)) and name it Bend N or "Neat & New".
However, to my mind a knot is a knot, it's not its tying method(s)!
Ciao,
s.
-
Hi vChan,
Thank you for your reply.
I will do as knotsaver suggested - I don't think I can change my mind!
Here is my analysis of your so-called 'False Hunters Bend' - with opposite twist tying method:
In your 'False Hunters bend' that allegedly begins with interlinked-loops, what in fact is happening is that your opposite twist tying method is creating a 'false positive'!
Your so-called 'opposite twist' tying method is forcing a square peg in a round hole so-to-speak...and it induces an instability. The moment you attempt to set and dress the knot (it capsizes) - and undergoes a 'energy phase-change'.
Once it has 'capsized' (or 'energy phase change' for want of a better term) - it self-orients to its 'intermediate stable form'.
From this 'intermediate stable form' - as increasing load is applied - it undergoes a further energy phase change.
The collars actually morph - and switch. The final stable energy state that is achieved has the same 'appearance' as #1425A Riggers bend - but is axially-rotated so that the SParts and tails are exchanged.
Now, if you reverse engineer the knot, carefully removing the tails from the central toggle-axis, you will see that it is nothing more than 2 superposed loops of the same chirality!
So I see your 'opposite-twist' tying method as an illusion - because in the end, it is in an unstable energy state - so the structure undergoes a phase-change to try to find its most stable form. And when you reverse engineer the final knot, it is nothing more than 2 superposed loops of the same chirality.
Mark G
Edit: Grammar edits...
-
even if I agree with agent_smith, I think we won't change our own minds so we should stop naming a knot/bend a "false something". I think we should follow D. Mandeville (who, as far as I know, first showed the bend in his Alphabend (see KM4 or KM18)) and name it Bend N or "Neat & New"
Indeed.
One can try to dig through historical work to find support for an argument - we do that all the time.
But, the term 'false' does have a place in the world of knotting.
The term 'false' has been used by other knot book authors on occasion - notably by Ashley and Budworth - no doubt to emphasize a point (ie a knot looks the same, but really isn't).
What I see as important with bends built from superposed or inter-linked loops is chirality and orientation.
What yChan refers to as a 'false Hunters bend' - to me, has structural beginnings from 2 superposed loops (despite his 'opposite-twist' tying method which is nothing more than a trick method).
Mark G
-
Request to moderators...
I think that this thread should be moved to 'Knotting concepts and explorations'.
The subject matter is exploring concepts that are interesting - and will generate further interest.
There is a lot more to be discovered by experimenting with superposed and inter-linked loops - and to determine the underlying science/reasoning of how 'bends' (end-to-end joining knots) are formed.
Mark G
-
Hi dear all, thanks S. and Mark, I agree to move this thread for further discussion under some other topic.
yChan
-
I have attached an image showing inter-linked loops which form the starting base for tying #1425A Riggers bend.
In the attached JPG image:
[ ] the top schematic shows L/handed chirality.
[ ] the bottom schematic shows R/handed chirality.
'X' indicates the central axis - through which the tails must penetrate in opposite directions.
Note the crossing points have reversed (indicated with 'O')
Tie each knot to its conclusion...and each is the mirror of the other.
Alter any of these parameters - and you end up with something other than #1425A Riggers bend.
NOTE: I should also point out that the tying method depicted in Ashleys Book of Knots at illustration #1425A induces an instability similar to that which occurs with yChan's 'opposite twist' method (for his so-called 'False Hunters bend). The tying method illustrated capsizes into a energy stable form immediately when load is applied.
As with yChan's method - it appears at first instance that you begin with superposed loops of the same chirality. But this is a trick method - because the structure immediately capsizes into an energy stable form the moment load is applied, while trying to set & dress it.
If you reverse engineer the stablised knot - by carefully removing the tails from the central axis, you are left with none other than 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality!
Mark G
PS... Thanks for moving this thread Scott :)
-
...
ok, I tried to shelve the discussion with historical argument (by the way, I forgot to mention Miles B6 Pivotal knot (after Mandeville))
...
Let's try to change yChan's mind :D ;)
...
YChan gives a lot of importance to the tying methods, but these are useful but can say nothing about the knot, we can obtain completely different knots with a different tuck/crossing (please, see Mandeville's Trambles (KM10,18,19,...) or Miles' symmetric end twisting (Symmetric Bends Ch8 "How to invent Symmetric Bends") p.154)).
I said a knot is a knot, it's not its tying method(s) because it is not important how we obtain the knot but how it is, how it works: it is important its structure, its topology and above all its geometry! So IMO it is more important to compare structures, geometries than tying methods! The analysis of the structure can tell us something about how the knot will work, if it will jam...the tying method not!
With this perspective the Zeppelin and the "Neat&New" are, as Xarax likes to say, rope made hinges, but the Neat&New (it's too long Neat&New I will say Bend N) distorts the pin.
2 days ago I tied a Double Zeppelin and a Double false Zeppelin eehh :) a Double N (maybe useful for dyneema) they look very similar and with the "doubleness" they work in a similar way.
Hope this helps (to change yChan's mind :D )
Ciao,
s.
-
Image showing the relationship between loop chirality and mirror image outcome.
We can say there are 2 forms of #1425A Riggers bend:
[ ] S form
[ ] Z form
Note this same principle would apply to other symmetric bends (eg Zeppelin bend).
Mark G
-
Hi dear all, thanks to s. and Mark, your informations are valuable to me. I read the relevant KMs, and know that this bend was mentioned. By then it was named False Zeppelin Bend and in my "My Working Notes" I name it False Hunter's Bend, and am questioned for reasons.
Unsally we name a knot by the name False because we mean that it resambles the Real one, and alert tiers that though both knots are seemed alike but the false one is not save or securer for use. We are also sure the structure are a bit different too.
The following characteristics may help to understand why I named it FHB :-
HB : Chirality - ZZ and SS. Inter-linked.
FHB : Chirality - ZZ and SS. Superposed.
#1425 : Chirality - ZZ and SS. Superposed.
ZB : Chirality - ZS and SZ. Superposed.
HB : Common known tying method - Opposite
FHB : My tying method - Opposite (Hi Mark, please neglect Opposite Twist. You says it is tricky. I say it is a tucking becomes a transformation.)
#1425 : My tying method - Opposite.
ZB : My tying method - Parallel (Spiral Drops, Parallel Riding).
HB : Appearance (tightened) resembles FHB (un-tightened).
FHB : Appearance (un-tightened) resembles HB (tightened). Appearance (tightened) resembles ABOK#1425 (tightened).
#1425 : Appearance (tightened) resembles FHB (tightened).
ZB : Appearance not resembles HB. Appearance not resembles the so-called False Zeppelin Bend(un-tightened).
I have made a pdf. here on the comparison of these 4 bends. The link is :-
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DeTLj-s7VxgGjQL8bQTMZ9C8EoVV1mB3?usp=sharing
I would like to ask as I have based on all the charteristics found for matching for False Hunter's Bend, still I have been requesed or to be convinced to use 'False Zeppeline Bend' which is of superposed likes Zeppelin Bend but with different chirality from Zeppelin Bend.
Finally may I suggest this questioned bend remains it?s first name - Neat & New Bend, or a False ABOK#1425 (see the characteristics tabulated).
Happy knotting
yChan
-
I would like to ask as I have based on all the charteristics found for matching for False Hunter's Bend, still I have been requesed or to be convinced to use 'False Zeppeline Bend' which is of superposed likes Zeppelin Bend but with different chirality from Zeppelin Bend.
Its good to see that you are beginning to shift toward toward the underlying structure of these end-to-end joining knots.
In your latest pdf file - on the right hand side - you are showing the loops and their chirality - whether superposed or interlinked.
On the left-hand side - you are showing tying methods. Its the right hand side with the loop chirality that is the fundamental science behind these knots.
The key to your question is the schematic diagrams at the right hand side of your pdf document.
It all comes down to these diagrams.
[ ] A Zeppelin is built from superposed loops - not from inter-linked loops.
[ ] #1425A Riggers bend is built from inter-linked loops - not from superposed loops.
What you refer to as a 'false hunters bend' - is actually built from superposed loops. From a structural viewpoint, it is therefor more closely aligned to a Zeppelin bend. The use of the term 'false' will always attract controversy. To some, it imputes a useful meaning. To others, the term is irritating.
Now - I have some comments as follows:
1. "Tying method #3" - (at top). The tying method is inducing an instability which forces the structure to re-orient to try to find a energy stable state. Its a 'trick' tying method.
2. "Tying method #6" - The loops are superposed which is a key structural beginning. At low loading/energy state - the structure is based on the Zeppelin bend. With increased loading/energy, the structure undergoes further change and morphs so that it is axially rotated 90 degrees. You refer to this structure as 'False Hunters Bend' - which I disagree with. I have personally witnessed a climbing Guide tie what he thought was a Zeppelin bend (to join his abseil ropes together so they can be 'retrievable'). I watched him join the ropes together, end-to-end. What he in fact tied is what you refer to as the 'False Hunters bend'. He was convinced that it was the Zeppelin bend - and was about to proceed with his abseil descent down a very big vertical cliff. I stopped him just in time - and pointed out the error. He examined the knot and disputed that it was incorrectly tied. I pointed out the error in close detail - and tied a correct Zeppelin and held it side-by-side with his knot so he could observe the difference. His eyes went like fried eggs and his face went pale. I told him that he had in fact been fooled into thinking it was a Zeppelin - and he then stated; "Ahhh - I've tied a false Zeppelin bend!" (I did not prompt him with the word 'false' - he thought of this term himself).
Note: To my knowledge (as far as I am aware) - the 'false Zeppelin' has not been tested for human life support applications in rock climbing and abseiling. So to experiment with your life on an untried joining knot is unwise. That's why I stopped him and pointed out his error.
3. "Tying method #8" - same tick method - it forces the knot to undergo an energy state change as soon as load is applied (sort of like the capsizing event in the carrick bend).
4. The last 2 lines (#1425A Riggers bend and Zeppelin bend) - excellent - you show the loops and their chirality (S versus Z).
However, on the left, you show your various tying methods - which to me is irrelevant (sorry). The tying method is not telling us anything about the fundamental structure.
For me personally, you could wholly delete all the tying methods and just focus on the schematic diagrams on the right (showing loops and their chirality).
Finally may I suggest this questioned bend remains it?s first name - Neat & New Bend, or a False ABOK#1425 (see the charteristics tabulated).
You can indeed suggest this but, my view is that the term 'false Zeppelin' has a place.
You'll find other terms such as 'evil imposter' / 'evil twin' and so forth... The term 'false' has been used by other knot book authors (eg Ashley and Budworth) - and I can understand their choices.
knotsaver (IGKT member) has alluded to historic publications where non-descript names were given or an arbitrary number were assigned. I am not in favor of this approach because it has no underlying meaning.
-
Hi, I'm a canyoneering enthusiast from Utah (USA), primarily interested in practical applications. The other day, a knot picture appeared on a canyoneering forum and no-one could identify/name it (see image link below). The OP stated that it was a Rigger's Bend but in fact it was not. Turns out it's the knot of the moment right here, the Maybe-False-Something Bend. :-)
From a practical perspective, and especially regarding knot inspectability in recreational canyoneering, False Zeppelin is not a useful name. It would perhaps be useful if this knot could easily be mistaken for a Zeppelin, but the opposite is true: it is easy to tell at a glance that the knot is no Zeppelin. However when well-tightened, it is not readily distinguished from a well-tightened Hunter's Bend. So if one were inclined to use "False" in the name, False Hunter's makes more sense than False Zeppelin.
Obviously there are multiple ways to approach knot-naming - has there been any concerted effort to create a knot naming standard? Haha.
bq
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1M4M8jhg-dbOX1IqvXBBZdQve5doc05LW?usp=sharing
-
Hello and welcome bipoqid!
From a practical perspective, and especially regarding knot inspectability in recreational canyoneering, False Zeppelin is not a useful name.
I disagree.
Also, in terms of underlying structure, #1425A Riggers bend and the Zeppelin bend are completely different. One is built from inter-locking loops of the same chirality while the other is the complete opposite.
It would perhaps be useful if this knot could easily be mistaken for a Zeppelin, but the opposite is true
That is a matter of perspective.
If you look more closely, rather than a superficial glance - the differences become more obvious.
However when well-tightened, it is not readily distinguished from a well-tightened Hunter's Bend
That's not right...if you set and dress the 'false Zeppelin' bend tightly - it morphs and axially rotates 90 degrees.
Try the same process with a correctly tied #1425A Riggers bend - and it does not morph or axially rotate.
Have you tried this yourself?
Also, the Riggers bend has a very distinctive shape - beautifully interlocking rope segments.
So if one were inclined to use "False" in the name, False Hunter's makes more sense than False Zeppelin.
I disagree (again) - I have seen the opposite occur - with a Guide tying what he thought was a Zeppelin bend but, which in fact was the 'false' Zeppelin bend.
Obviously there are multiple ways to approach knot-naming - has there been any concerted effort to create a knot naming standard?
Where possible, to be clear and accurate, knotting enthusiasts try to use 'ABoK' numbers. The ABoK number refers to an illustration in the 'Ashely Book of Knots' which is widely regarded as a definitive work on knots and knotting.
When there is no ABoK number for a particular knot, we then look for historical info and/or consensus opinion.
...
Have a close look at my attached photo...look very closely - you will see distinct physical differences which characterize each knot.
Mark G
-
Hi, can anyone tell me when the False Zeppelin Bend was named and by whom ? Thanks.
yChan
-
Hi, can anyone tell me when the False Zeppelin Bend was named and by whom ?
Why is this important to you?
On what path do you wish to proceed?
yChan - I think perhaps the issue is the fundamental structure of the Zeppelin bend versus #1425A Riggers bend.
Here are some questions for you:
Do you agree that the Zeppelin bend is built from 2 superposed loops of opposite chirality? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Do you agree that #1425A Riggers bend is built from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Your answers to these fundamental questions will shed some light on where we go from here...
-
Thanks again to Mark for your response.
Your questions have already been printed on my previous thread together with the pdf. Up to now you have not made comments on the bends outlooks. Are they not relevant for discussion?
My wife is a knitting lover. She knitted numerous knitting wears in different patterns for me. Last night I asked her how would you select patterns for knitting? She said that she would choose for the good looking pattern and by it's complexity in knitting. That means she firstly judged by the outlook and then the knitting technique required for her to accomplish the pattern. Having read the incident that you mentioned above about a climber who mis-tied a bend. I would like to know how did you acknowledge immediately he tied a wrong bend or a Hunter's Bend that was not as good as Zeppelin Bend? Yes, let me guess the answer for you. You instantly recognised it was a Hunter's Bend (by it's outlook/appearance) or a bend like Hunter's Bend. You un-tied it and found it was not a Hunter's Bend, but a False Zeppelin Bend. This leads me to believe that you can easily distinguish them by their characteristics of collars as every tier does. Thanks to this, you acted what you ought to do to deliver your expertise to save this climber.
A more common practice, one wants to buy a BMW car. He looks for a BMW car (by outlook). He would not check every part of the car, until someday it breaks down for repare or overhaul and find that some part is not genuine. That is what we compare things firstly from the outlook and for more, it is the content/components/structure etc.
Nothing is important to me.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
In the attached images, 3 knots are presented: A, B, C.
From a practical in-the-field I.D. perspective, please consider the following questions for each knot pair:
- Can the 2 knots be readily differentiated by an average recreational user?
- Can they be readily identified?
- Which pair is the easiest to differentiate (A/B or A/C)?
bq
p.s. there is a certain level of absurdity in my attempt to present a practical perspective on this naming issue, due to the fact that none of the bends under discussion see common use in recreational canyoneering. That said, some groups are leaving slings behind in canyons, tied with the False Hunter's Bend, thinking they are tying the Hunter's. This pic (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F211A5mb0bEZu-gdKYd1rneWrYFZj2qP/view?usp=sharing) from my last post shows such a sling, which was cleaned from its anchor by an safety/enviro-conscious canyoneer. The person who tied this knot is apparently unable to differentiate between it and the real thing.
-
Hello yChan,
I would like to know how did you acknowledge immediately he tied a wrong bend or a Hunter's Bend that was not as good as Zeppelin Bend? Yes, let me guess the answer for you. You instantly recognised it was a Hunter's Bend (by it's outlook/appearance) or a bend like Hunter's Bend.
No - 100% incorrect.
Be advised that #1425A Riggers bend in fact is very secure. You can in fact use this knot to unite 2 climbing ropes.
However, it is not jam resistant - meaning, there is a risk that you may struggle to untie your ropes.
So if i had recognised the mistake as a 'Riggers bend' - I would not have been concerned.
Please look at my attached images. Note the properly tensioned dressing state of the false Zeppelin bend - now it looks quite different?
You un-tied it and found it was not a Hunter's Bend, but a False Zeppelin Bend. This leads me to believe that you can easily distinguish them by their charteristics of collars as every tier does. Thanks to this, you acted what you ought to do to deliver your expertise to save this climber.
100% incorrect again.
I recognised it immediately as a false Zeppelin bend. I didn't need to untie it to reach that conclusion.
...
yChan - where are you going with all this?
What are you ultimately hoping to achieve?
What do you hope to prove and to whom?
I am looking at bends from a structural perspective - and not a superficial appearance that is only skin deep. I seek to understand the underlying structure in knots.
...
I like you work - you have put a lot of effort in - and you should be congratulated as such. You have photographed an array of different ways to arrive at the same knot. At the end of the day - it is still the same knot - a knot isn't defined by its tying method (and this is key to move forward).
My interest is not in your 'tying methods' per se - rather, its the fundamental structure upon which symmetric bends are built.
-
Thank you for your replies and images bipoqid.
- Can the 2 knots be readily differentiated by an average recreational user?
- Can they be readily identified?
- Which pair is the easiest to differentiate (A/B or A/C)?
I note that the configuration you have opted to photograph are not a true indication of a properly tensioned dressing state. Try tensioning the false Zeppelin bend just a bit more (by hand)...what do you notice?
To be 100% crystal clear...
#1425A Riggers bend (aka Hunters bend) is perfectly safe to unite 2 climbing or abseiling ropes.
You can safely use the Riggers bend as a method of joining ropes in preparation for a retrievable abseil system.
However, it is not jam resistant - meaning: There is an increased risk that your ropes will be difficult to untie.
there is a certain level of absurdity in my attempt to present a practical perspective on this naming issue
Agreed - it is absurd.
That said, some groups are leaving slings behind in canyons, tied with the False Hunter's Bend, thinking they are tying the Hunter's.
The name you insist on using to describe the 'false' version of #1425A Riggers bend is your personal preference - and it is based on superficial appearance at a surface level.
However, the underlying structure of what you insist on calling a 'false hunters bend' in fact has nothing to do with #1425A Riggers bend (it is an outward illusion).
In my previous reply to you - I asked if you had actually set and dressed what you believe (via outward appearance) is a 'false hunters bend'.
Can you please set and dress this knot very tightly (in cordage is best) - what do you notice?
Also, when tying a #1425A Riggers bend - notice that is constructed from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality.
The Zeppelin bend - on the other hand - is constructed from 2 superposed loops of opposite chirality.
Exercise:
1. Tie what you refer to as a 'false hunters bend'
2. Now very carefully reverse engineer the knot - by very carefully unpicking the tails (without disturbing the remaining loops).
3. Examine the remaining loops... are they interlinked or are they superposed?
Here is food for thought about your concerns over people who are tying knots incorrectly.
Practice is key! Like all skills - you need to practice to develop long term memory pathways. Tying a knot once from an image on the internet or from a book may lead to error. I always recommend professional instruction from an experienced, competent instructor. You will always come across miss-tied knots and you will always see people do stupid things (that is the nature of being human). Maybe you could use social media to organize a knot tying skills tune-up evening or afternoon? However, I would ask that if you do get involved with skills development with others - be careful about your terminology - don't just label knots with your own personal naming preferences. Try to be accurate and consistent - using science to back up your claims.
One only has to look at #1410 Offset overhand bend (aka 'EDK') as an example of rampant miss-information gone wild.
If I may be bold and ask you some questions:
[ ] What are you hoping to achieve?
[ ] What are you hoping to prove and to whom?
Mark G
-
Hi, can anyone tell me when the False Zeppelin Bend was named and by whom ? Thanks.
yChan
...from the Forum history
(!?)
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1992.0
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.0
...
(I had said that we wouldn't have changed our own minds :-\ :) )
...
Let's call it ... False Bend! or FTB (Falsely Tied Bend) ;) :) :(
Poor it, by the way it is fully (triple for Miles) symmetric, it is an autoreverse bend!...
Ciao,
s.
-
Refer attached image.
It shows the dressing state of the knot when properly set and tensioned by hand.
This is its true appearance which seems to have been overlooked.
-
Hi Mark, your photo above is not the final state. You may see the pdf. of my previous thread. The photo shows both the final states of FHB and ABOK#1425 are very much alike.
yChan
-
Hi Mark, your photo above is not the final state
Incorrect.
Statements like this leave me wondering if you have actually properly set and tensioned the knot?
Try again please.
And no - it is not necessary for me to re-read your pdf because clearly something must be wrong. The knot structure morphs - it does not stay in the nice Zeppelin-like shape (or if you must insist, #1425A Riggers bend) as depicted...you surely must know this if you tried to properly set and tension the knot?
Apologies yChan - If you cant get past some of these basic concepts I don't think I'll be following this thread much further...
-
Hi Mark,
I made a pdf. for everyone to view on 27th Feb., not only for you. It is self explanatory.
I understand that you base on 'superposed', and I base on 'chirality'. That is different perspective.
Anyway thanks for all your informations that help me a lot. I do not need to proof myself on what, but just love knotting. I share my work in this forum and will keep doing it, and would like to have more comments.
Let me tell you 'Tying Method' is an art. The art that you can tie a knot with different starts. No tricks but transformations. The art that you will find knotting joy. It will lead you to discover more, and perhaps discover new knots.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
I understand that you base on 'superposed', and I base on 'chirality'. That is different perspective.
I'm sorry yChan but that is a misrepresentation.
I base my understanding on both chirality and loop geometry (inter-linked or superposed) - they go hand-in-hand (they are inter-dependent factors).
I think everyone on this forum appreciates your good work yChan :)
My critique is largely focused on your tying methods - in that a significant proportion of your work appears to be focused on tying methodology rather than underlying structure.
And you do seem to ignore certain aspects of what I have presented to you (eg the morphing of what you insist on calling a 'false hunters bend').
Your 'false hunters bend' morphs as soon as any load is applied - even when setting and dressing the knot by hand force alone - it morphs immediately.
My point being that its appearance is not actually as you depict - it axially rotates - and it has an unmistakable shape.
And this is one of the reasons why I have a fundamental disagreement about its genesis - because in my view, what you insist on calling a 'false hunters bend' in fact has debatable resemblance to it either superficially or structurally.
Anyhow - I think you will dispute this to the end of time - and that's why I grow weary of this...
One thing I will say... Since I have explored loop chirality and physical geometry (inter-linked or superposed) - it has enabled me to better understand symmetric bends.
Had I only played around with tying methods - I don't think I would have advanced my understanding.
-
Hi Mark, we both agree it is a False bend (see my posts). It is dangerous to use it whatever the purpose. We were discussing on the structure and the outlook. We have our own reasons to believe our assumption. I find this is good to the forum.
Furthermore, why not doing more tying methods. I believe some of them are easier to finish the bend. This is another choice for tiers. Why not sharing and exploring for more?
yChan
-
I made a pdf. for everyone to view on 27th Feb., not only for you. It is self explanatory.
...please, let us agree about the knot, at least!
yChan tightens the bend as the ABoK #1062, by the way you can tighten the Hunter in that way too, if the bend is in a loose form, why don't you do? (it is not so easy to tie the Zeppelin in that way).
Mark tightens the bend with the bend not in a loose form, I mean, by tightening the SParts and the WEnds...
it's a "bi-"stable" " bend!
I understand that you base on 'superposed', and I base on 'chirality'. That is different perspective
yes, but you yChan base on tying method (above all), whilst Mark (and I) on knot "performance"/behaviour, after (and independently how) it was tied.
However, I changed my mind: I will not name it False Bend anymore...I think "false" is the "knottyer" (not any of you, please ;) ) who is wrong on tying other bends!
I like tying methods (elementary/didactical and advanced/tricky), they can be a good field of research, I think they could be useful to enumerate knots, but I repeat a knot is a knot, it's not its tying method(s)!
[edit] a knot is like a mountain (or maybe not a knot is not so static! :) ) and the tying methods are the roads/paths/climbing routes to the mountain! [edit]
As you like tying methods, yChan, please find (it does exist!) an elementary/didactical tying method, for the Zeppelin and the Neat&New, different only in one point, I mean, suppose you want to tie a Zeppelin and you remember "superposed loops and tails exiting from opposite sides" (you (you generic "knottyer") don't remember chirality, what it means...))...and after a while you got in your hands a Neat&New! So the Neat&New can be a falsely tied Hunter as well as a falsely tied Zeppelin!
I don't know if this helps! :)
Ciao,
s.
-
It's important to remember that this knot has a cross-dressing nature, which has been noted elsewhere. To slightly paraphrase agent_smith's wording, it can morph and axially rotate 90 degrees. It does not automatically do so, depending on how it is tightened, and on the friction characteristics of the cordage used. Referencing a photo from my previous post,
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5991.0;attach=22303;image
Knot A is the Voldemort knot, and the dress it wears is quite stable. Let's call this dressed state D2. Referencing agent_smith's dress:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5991.0;attach=22313;image
Also stable, let's call this dressed state D1.
My knot A is tied in well-used but still-supple 8mm aramid cord, which has a high-friction sheath. This results in a knot that is quite stable in its dressed/set state, when the standing parts are tensioned. To contrast, I tied the same knot in brand-new Beal 100% Dyneema cord, fully set in D2 and the knot does indeed morph and axially rotate to D1 when the standing parts are tensioned. I also tied the knot in a piece of well-used stiffish 8 mm Nylon cord and it also was stable in D2. This conditional stability of D2 is also evident from the canyoneering anchor sling referenced in my first post.
Given this, it's not especially useful to continue referring to a correct or incorrect dressed state for this knot. Either state, D1 or D2, is possible depending on how the knot is tightened, and D2 can be stable depending on the type and condition of the cordage used. Perhaps with enough force, even a stable D2 tied in high-friction cord would tend to morph into D1. I don't know, and if this were an important knot in the field of canyoneering, it would be worth the trouble to test this. Its importance to me lies only in the fact that people in canyons are using it, tying it in D2, thinking it is the Hunter's and calling it so. Given that, the name False Hunter's Bend would be useful in a canyoneering context, to emphasize that Hunter's has an evil twin. I think False Zeppelin Bend is less useful, given that the Zeppelin does not have an evil, cross-dressing twin.
Speaking to agent_smith's story of the guide that couldn't tie straight: in that moment, when the guide mis-tied the knot, the spontaneously given name of False Zeppelin makes complete sense. In a broader context, it does not make sense as the Zeppelin is readily discernible from the Hunter's at a glance (from the collars). That this one individual did not know this well-known point of distinction is not solid support for taking the False Zeppelin name beyond the context of that story.
This whole discussion is a good reminder of why we have multiple knot names in the first place. There are many knot subcultures, described by Ashley in fascinating detail. I especially love the story of the various Butcher's knots used in the Washington, DC area. In any case, it's inevitable that there will be multiple names for the knots that we use. In a specific subculture, however (in this case canyoneering) it is useful to standardize those names, based on appearance, as much as possible. I am especially grateful and supportive of agent_smith's work in the naming of offset joining knots for rappel ropes. Bravo, and please continue that work. 'Nuff said for now.
-
Hi bipoqid,
there is the state shown by siriuso in his pdf file too, it is another state...see siriuso's pdf file or ABoK#1062 (the SParts of the eye are the tails of the bend and the eyelegs are the SParts of the bend).
Ciao,
s.
-
It does not automatically do so, depending on how it is tightened, and on the friction characteristics of the cordage used. Referencing a photo from my previous post
Hello bipoqid,
This is one of the finest examples of obfuscation that I have ever read!
If you are going to post on this forum - please understand that you must be willing to accept critique.
The false Zeppelin bend (aka 'Voldemort bend') transitions from its unstable dressing state to its final dressing when load is applied. In some cases, the transition may only be partial (as you have pointed out) - likely a phenomena related to sub 9mm cordage and how the person pulled on each of the 4 rope segments when setting the knot. Even in a partial transition, the appearance changes as the collars begin to collapse and morph. This partial transition will progress further if load increases. And in the end - as load is further increased, the structure will continue to morph to its final stable state as I have earlier depicted. The structure appears to be vulnerable to jamming. Your assertion that the 'Voldemort bend' doesn't always morph from its initial dressing state is conditional in my view - as stated above, certain conditions must be met. Even if those conditions are met, there will still be a partial transition/morphing - which will change its appearance.
Your photography is potentially misleading in my view (camera angles - lighting, mono-colors etc). However, I reiterate that its all based on outward appearances.
I can immediately detect the difference between the two knots - despite your careful dressing and careful use of camera angles and mono-colored cords.
Your entire premise is based upon outward appearance rather than underlying structure. The underlying structure is key to understanding knots as force machines (ie discussions focused on tying methods and outward appearances usually lead up dead-end alley ways). Which leads to me to believe that you lack understanding of the underlying structure and orientation of the loops from which symmetric bends are created.
A dressing state - imputes a geometry of a transitory nature.
Canyoning, climbing, abseiling, caving etc... all involve the use of human-rated ropes/cordage (eg EN1891 / EN 892 / EN564, etc). I have a vast array of 10mm-13mm ropes and cordage in my collection (many makes and models) - and I have yet to see the 'Voldemort' bend remain fixed in its transitory dressing state. It always morphs to its final dressing when load is applied. One only has to look closely at the physics of how force is acting on the structure to understand this. The SParts are applying differential loading across the central axis which triggers a state change. The result of this injection of force is the structure morphs under load.
To repeat again - in case it wasn't clear - your entire premise is based upon superficial outward appearance and not the underlying structure upon which symmetric bends are built.
The reason why some prefer to attach the label of 'False Zeppelin bend' to your 'Voldemort bend' is because of underlying structure (not superficial outward appearance). I am of the view that you still don't seem to understand that crucial and salient point.
Now - there is one aspect amongst this obfuscation that I concur with - its that I like the name 'Voldemort bend'.
Mark G
-
Mark,
I don't know if with heavy load it capsizes in the dressed knot you show (the state D1 as called by bipoqid), but try this, tighten the bend as yChan does (ABoK#1062) but using the tails/WEnds (as SParts), then load the real SParts (the action should be as you load the SParts of ABoK#1062 by pulling in opposite directions), you should obtain a maybe-stable D2 (bipoqid) state.
--
To my (Italian) ears " Voldemort" sounds strange because in Italian "mort(e)" means death!
--
I like "underlying structure".
--
Ciao,
s.
-
Aye! So, another European death knot, eh. :P
-
Aye! So, another European death knot, eh. :P
Indeed!?
but in this case it could be North American or Australian too not only European :)
However I don't know Harry Potter's saga and Lord Voldemort's knotting skills! :)
--
Mark, I try tying the bend with nylon monofilament and it capsizes in ABoK #1062 form (yChan's state)!?
--
Ciao,
s.
-
I don't know if with heavy load it capsizes in the dressed knot you show (the state D1 as called by bipoqid), but try this, tighten the bend as yChan does (ABoK#1062) but using the tails/WEnds (as SParts), then load the real SParts (the action should be as you load the SParts of ABoK#1062 by pulling in opposite directions), you should obtain a maybe-stable D2 (bipoqid) state.
Just making an important comment here: I do not use monfilament and I likely never will!
I only use human rated cordage intended for abseiling/climbing/vertical rescue application.
So I just wanted to get that crucial point out of the way.
Also - I dont regard monofilament as representative of what most people undertaking ropes sports would use in their day-to-day pursuits.
So the behaviour of monofilament (to me) is largely not relevant (sorry).
Second point:
knotsaver - have you tried using a lever hoist / chain block /winch or some other means to generate a lot of force when determining response to increasing load?
I had alreasy done as you had suggest long ago...but, once you hit the knot with some significant load - it morphs.
Again - I am talking about human-rated ropes (not monfilament or some other exotic line that most climbers/abseilers/canyoners would never use.
In certain conditions and with certain types of human-rated cordage - you can reach a point where it is difficult to get the 'voldemort' knot to morph. But - and here's the but, keep apply load using a 'machine' - and lo and behold - it morphs.
I had a really stiff and old Edelrid 9.0mm diameter canyoning rope which resisted my efforts to get it to morph (by hand force). However, as sure as taxes, as soon as I got the 2 ton lever hoist on it - it morphed.
My point: The Voldemort (false Zeppelin) bend is a dressing state. With load - it morphs. In some special conditional circumstances and with deliberate efforts to try to circumvent the morphing - you can delay it from happening. Keep adding load - and it morphs.
-
No Mark, please, don't close your mind! ;)
Not all knot tyers are climbers or use human rated cordage! :P
Nylon monofilament, to my mind, is great to let one see how the knots work in limit cases...so with reference to the Neat&New Bend (I name it in this way after Mandeville who first showed the bend, (Voldemort doesn't add anything to the understanding of the underlying structure)) the monofilament shows that the bend rotates/morphs and finds its equilibrium when it looks like the nub of ABoK#1062.
Do you think that this is not relevant?
maybe, but I instead guess (and this is my point) that with heavy load and with generic (they can be nautical, climbing ...) ropes the bend could capsize in the form of the nub of ABoK #1062!
Please, (if you find a piece of monofilament 0.8-1mm) try tying a Zeppelin Bend and look how it works.
In a precedent post I said that the Hunter Bend could be tied in a form similar to ABoK#1062, but if you tie the knot using monofilament you see that its equilibrium is with the standard form of the Hunter (and with reference to slippage it can lose against the Zeppelin)!
Ciao,
s.
-
No Mark, please, don't close your mind! ;)
Not all knot tyers are climbers or use human rated cordage!
Of course not!
Its a question is context and relevancy.
Many symmetric bends would find use with human rated ropes in activities at height (eg climbing, abseiling, etc) - but unlikely to be used in fishing or for decorative purposes.
For example, people who work at height or in recreational climbing would be more likely to use a Zeppelin bend than a fisherman.
Do you think that this is not relevant?
It can be relevant - but with diminishing relevancy.
Fisherman (for example) tend to join their broken lines using a 'blood' knot or a 'unit-to-uni' knot. They would not use a Zeppelin or #1415 Double fishermans (despite the name!). However, there is no climber, abseiler or rope technician in the world that would join their human rated kernmantel ropes together with a blood knot.
[ ] Blood knot = joining monofilament line
[ ] Zeppelin bend = joining human rated kernmantel ropes
What does this mean?
Yes- we can use 'exotic' lines (eg monofilament) as a tool to study knots.
We can also use dyneema / HMPE type lines as a tool.
The reality is that users of symmetric bends such as the Zeppelin or #1415 Double fishermans are rope technicians and/or climbers/abseilers/canyoners. They would never use monofilament - ever.
And similarly, a fisherman would never use human-rated climbing ropes to catch a fish on a hook.
#1410 Offset overhand bend is the domain of cllimbers/canyoners/abseilers.
No sane fisherman would ever use #1410 to join broken fishing line (it wouldn't be secure).
And yet - #1410 is secure in human-rated ropes.
So the behaviour of #1410 in monofilament - is not reflected in human-rated ropes.
And by extension, just because a knot performs in a certain way using one particular type of line does not mean that it will perform the same way in an entirely different type of line.
Testing knot behaviour in radically different types of lines/cords is the realm of academia.
EDIT NOTE: One other thing I should mention - because I think it is important - is that the realm of ultra-thin monofilament / fishing line is very difficult to work with - and its very hard to see whats going on while trying to tie a knot. You need really good eye-sight and a lot of patience. Also, it would be very difficult to photograph actual knots in monofilament / fishing line- i dont think I could do it. And even if you had the right camera gear/lens to get super close (macro) photography to capture details - I still think it would be difficult for most people to discern salient structural details. So if you cant really see whats going on (unless you have excellent vision and eat a lot of carrots) - most ordinary folk would struggle. And if you cant really see properly and you are struggling to try to achieve a particular and definite geometry, what good would that do? I doubt if i could (even with a jewelers magnifier) and non-shaky hands achieve a defined target structure.
I am thinking you are going to read this and still find a way to rebut it somehow... Perhaps you would counter with - "Use a jewelers head-mounted magnifier + a strong light source and don't suffer from shaky hands", etc etc etc ! I would still say - this is all the realm of academia :)
Anyhow, this is all drifting off topic.
-
Hi dear all,
We should notice that the tying method of Hunter's Bend in ABOK is loops superposed. It is the first known method and a fastest method too. After tails tucking, it becomes loops inter-linked and the bend is formed.
This transformation/phenomenon of loops superposed changes to loops inter-linked should not be neglected and should be mentioned in further study.
So tying methods matter always.
Happy Knotting Always
yChan
-
We should notice that the tying method of Hunter's Bend in ABOK is loops superposed.
Its a trick tying method - its an illusion (I already pointed this out in an earlier post - you must have missed that?)
Looks can be deceiving.
It is the first known method and a fastest method too.
Incorrect. Phil D Smith had devised a tying method earlier (he was the first to report and illustrate the 'Riggers bend'). His method was a variation on the twist tying method to create a #1053 Butterfly - but to reverse the direction of one of the tails through the central axis (however, he didn't report that it matters which tail you choose to reverse - because it does matter! Otherwise, you will end up with an axially rotated Riggers bend).
'Fast' is a matter of opinion - and varies according to ones perspective.
So tying methods matter always.
Incorrect again!
Tying methods tell us nothing about the underlying structure of a knot and how it functions.
One only has to look at #1053 Butterfly eye knot (TIB mid-line)...there are many different tying methods to arrive at this eye knot. Do a forum search and you will find lots of people all touting that 'their tying method' is the 'fastest' and 'easiest to remember' method.
What does this mean?
It tells us nothing about the structure of the Butterfly and how it functions.
There are no doubt a myriad of tying methods to arrive at a Zeppelin bend or #1425A Rigger bend too. Again - so what?
If you carefully reverse engineer these knots by carefully unpicking the tails - guess what you are left with?
...
yChan - You have done some nice work with devising all the different tying methods of arriving at the same knot. Well done :)
But, all these myriad of tying methods does not tell us anything about the underlying structure of a knot or how it functions.
Your analysis of the tying method depicted at illustration number #1425A (ABoK) is an illusion - it is simply a trick method - note how the moment you apply a little load to try to set and dress the tangle - it immediately becomes unstable and undergoes a transformation... its sort of like your opposite twist tying methods.
At the end of the day - it is all lost in translation and meaningless in terms of the underlying knot structure.
EDIT Note: Grammar edits...
-
So tying methods matter always.
Happy Knitting Always
...lapsus or typoo?
:D
(I'm joking! ;) )
Ciao,
s.
p.s. Mark, I use "thick" monofilament > 1mm. The Zeppelin is great with monofilament too!!!
-
Hi s., thanks for telling. It is a typing mistake. It should be read Happy Knotting Always.
yChan
-
Hi Mark and dear all,
Some of my tying method are quick access to form the loops formations (superposed or inter-linked). They are not illusion as far as I know. Amongst all, one of my tying method (Opposite Ends) for the bends is the same as shown in ABOK (i.e. p.261, Hunter's Bend#1425A). It is what Mark critiqued it is an illusion. Hi Mark what are your critique about Ashley's tying methods for bends in ABOK, such as bends started with Half Knot or Overhand Knot ?
I share my work in his forum because I suppose they are new and perhaps new to others. Up to now I have not yet been commented that any of my tying method has been posted before, except dear Alan Lee. I appreciate that Alan commented on one of my other tying method of ZB is the same as his. I realised then, and admit he did it before mine. As such, I am still longing for more comments.
Tying methods and my other tying methods are ways to finish/tie the right knots/bends and of course aiming at no underlying structures would be changed, otherwise they become another knots/bends or new knots/bends. My tying methods being so-called tricky methods also achieve the same goal, no more no less.
Hi Mark, could you show me your tying methods or the tying methods you used for these bends family ? Hoping to learn more from you.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
yChan,
I think you should start a new thread - titled 'Tying Methods for some Bends'.
In that thread, you could focus your efforts entirely on the myriad of ways to arrive at a target knot.
There has already been a lot of forum discussion on a myriad of tying methods to arrive at #1053 Butterfly knot (all claiming to be easier and faster or easy to remember).
I personally have little interest in devising multiple tying combinations to arrive at the same knot.
Although I should qualify that by stating that I do have an interest in finding 'TIB' tying methods. Although finding a TIB tying method is something that is closely linked to 'eye knots' - rather than 'bends'. A lot of work has been done by Xarax and others on TIB tying methods for the various Bowlines and Bowline derivatives.
If you do decide to start a new thread that is entirely dedicated to 'tying methods' - please make sure that you don't confuse structure with tying methods (they are completely different entities). Make a careful distinction between the tying method to arrive at a particular knot and its underlying structure.
Other than that - I am growing weary of your apparent ignorance of the distinction between a tying method to arrive at a knot and its underlying structure. This constant merry-go-round of confused discussion is causing me to tune-out...
-
Hi Mark and dear all,
I respect everyone who have their own fields of interest and also for all your valuable opinions. But I have not been convinced that you said tying methods and underlying structure are completely two different entities.
Let us put an end by now not to discuss anymore and to the assumption that I have no knowledge on underlying structure. I would not like to open a thread for this issue.
But anyhow, would you please reply on my request to my last thread, that is : your tying methods and the tying methods you used in these bends family. Thank you.
yChan
-
This post responds directly to a couple of agent_smith's points about my points. Another post to follow, with all-new points. Ok, mostly recycled points, but presented differently - and with all-new photos!
This is one of the finest examples of obfuscation that I have ever read!
It is not obfuscation; it is interesting to note that morphing may not occur under certain real conditions.
I can immediately detect the difference between the two knots - despite your careful dressing and careful use of camera angles and mono-colored cords.
Incorrect. In fact nothing in those photos was carefully considered. The dressing was done to replicate that found in the knotted sling from my first post. The straight-on camera angle? The dirty old cord? It was all done spontaneously. The cord in the photos happens to be my go-to for knot practice.
In future, please keep baseless conjecture about others' motives and actions out of your posts; it does nothing to further discussion.
Your entire premise is based upon outward appearance rather than underlying structure.
Yes. That premise was implied, but not explicit in my first post. So, to be explicit: my context is the visual inspection of knots used in recreational canyoneering. Outward appearance is paramount in this context, and underlying structure has little direct importance.
To be continued...
-
from bipoqid...
In future, please keep baseless conjecture about others' motives and actions out of your posts; it does nothing to further discussion.
! ! Clearly you have some irritation with the word "careful".
This word was not intended to imply mischief or deceit. But, you chose to clothe my post with that imputed meaning.
In future, before replying with such remarks - try sending a PM to seek clarification before embarking on a course of action that you might later regret - or least seek to clarify a persons intent.
Had I intended to imply mischief and/or deceit, I would have explicitly used those words (and yet I did not).
...
Your entire understanding and argument hinges on a simple outward appearance.
And that's fine - you can post whatever you like.
The other (secondary) 'argument hinges on an assumption that the falsely tied Zeppelin bend will not morph under certain defined conditions.
How much load have you applied to test this assumption? Have you explored the load threshold which triggers morphing?
In any attempt to delay morphing, it is necessary to cinch the tails very carefully and deliberately, working the structure carefully.
The words 'attempt to delay' and 'carefully' - do not have a sinister element.
It is factual to point out that to prevent immediate morphing, one has to pay careful to how the knot is dressed. Hauling hard on the tails while dressing the knot into a compacted form is crucial to delay morphing.
However, from an investigative standpoint (to probe further into the underlying characteristics of how the knot works) - when load is further applied on a test bench, morphing is inevitable.
I am happy for you to continue to argue that outward appearances are the key to a climber/canyoner/abseiler to be fooled or misled into believing that they had tied a true Zeppelin.
You argument is further centered on semantics - a naming decision for a symmetric bend that has an outward resemblance somewhat akin to #1425A Riggers bend. You insist that this outward resemblance is strong evidence that the knot therefore must have an affinity with #1425A and be named accordingly.
I am content and not at all irritated by your strong desire to attach a name with affinity and connection to #1425A.
-
The other day I went out to test the morphability of the False Hunter's Bend under bodyweight loading; results at the link below:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1K00rdRYyb1Ux5MVjuxbycXUUP1AMeupG?usp=sharing
Cords used:
- Off-white color, plain sheath: 8mm Sterling rope w/aramid sheath, well used, supple, exact model unknown
- Blue/red: 8mm cord, nylon, relatively new but sheath no longer slick, medium-stiff, exact model unknown
- Tan/blue/black: 8mm Sterling Canyon Lux, well-used, supple
- White/black/yellow: Petzl Vector 11mm, relatively new with slick sheath, medium-stiff
Other notes:
- all tests were done using my bodyweight (~ 78 kg)
- bodyweight load photos involved slowly easing myself into a position of bodyweight loading, to avoid the load exceeding bodyweight.
- bounce load photos involved taking a slight hop and allowing my full weight to drop onto the rope, immediately after the bodyweight load photo was taken, to increase the load above bodyweight.
- No load measurements were taken as means were lacking.
General conclusion: it is reasonable to assume that the False Hunter's Bend may not significantly morph under bodyweight depending on certain conditions related to the cord used, e.g. sheath material, flexibility, wear state, dirtiness, wet/dry, etc., and also whether the anchor sling is tied in a loop, extended over an edge before loading, etc. That the knot will morph further when sufficiently loaded, I have no doubt, but this point is not relevant in all cases. In cases without significant morphing, it can be easily mistaken for a Hunter's Bend. It is not easily mistaken for a Zeppelin Bend in such cases, due to the obvious collar tell. In a partially morphed state, it resembles neither a Zeppelin nor a Hunter's. In its fully morphed state, it resembles the Hunter's rotated 90 degrees, but again, not the Zeppelin.
Aside: it is expected (and welcome) that we will always have multiple names for a knot, chosen (hopefully) according to the name's usefulness to the specific user group.
-
from bipoqid...
In future, please keep baseless conjecture about others' motives and actions out of your posts; it does nothing to further discussion.
! ! Clearly you have some irritation with the word "careful".
This word was not intended to imply mischief or deceit. But, you chose to clothe my post with that imputed meaning.
In future, before replying with such remarks - try sending a PM to seek clarification before embarking on a course of action that you might later regret - or least seek to clarify a persons intent.
Had I intended to imply mischief and/or deceit, I would have explicitly used those words (and yet I did not).
I am not allowed to send PMs for some reason. So...
You are again making assumptions and statements of a personal nature. I consider this to be bad forum manners. I am a newbie around here, so maybe such manners is the norm here, I don't know. It's best if publicly posted comments address only the specific points of discussion, without such points ever getting personal. Is that too much to ask?
-
From bipoqid...
The other day I went out to test the morphability of the False Hunter's Bend under bodyweight loading; results at the link below:
It is possible that you didn't read my post.
The knot morphs - because its initial form is a transitory state.
Your test is not complete. I clearly stated that you need to keep increasing load. I can assure you that the falsely tied Zeppelin bend transitions under increasing load (ie morphs) to a final state of equilibrium. Indeed, you need to pull quite hard on the tails and work the knot to delay morphing. In other words, a degree of effort is required to achieve a dressing state that resists initial morphing. But, no matter how attentive you are to dressing and setting the knot, it will morph to its equilibrium state as load is increased.
When you test knots - you need to make sure that you test to at least 50% of the MBS yield to be sure of its performance (as a general rule - although higher loads may be necessary to probe further into knot performance).
From a scientific standpoint - its like testing a carabiner to body weight only and then stopping the test and then popping the champagne cork. Or doing aerodynamic tests on an airplane - but never going fast enough to break the sound barrier - so no sonic boom was heard - and it is assumed that it doesn't exist. Had the test pilot pushed a little faster, the sound barrier would be reached and a sonic boom initiated, and therefore proven to exist.
We also test to probe for such factors as; jamming threshold, and instability.
For example, when testing #1410 offset overhand bend (aka 'EDK') - you don't just test to body weight and stop and then pop the champagne cork.
My view is that you are looking for ways to support your position re resistance to morphing (reaching equilibrium) - I can empathize with your motives in this regard.
You are again making assumptions and statements of a personal nature. I consider this to be bad forum manners.
In future, please keep baseless conjecture about others' motives and actions out of your posts; it does nothing to further discussion.
Hmmm. I consider your above comments to be bad forum manners.
Please keep these remarks out of this forum.
If you wish to continue bouncing the ball back n forth - I'm not sure what this will achieve?
You are highly motivated to back you claims as follows:
1. That the falsely tied Zeppelin bend closely resembles #1425A Riggers bend; and
2. That the falsely tied Zeppelin bend does not morph - and therefor it retains its similarity to the falsely tied Zeppelin bend (which allegedly backs your claim of a person being deceived into thinking they had correctly tied the Zeppelin bend).
With regard to point #1: This claim is entirely based on superficial outward appearance - and not underlying structure.
With regard to point #2: You did not undertake a valid load test to rule out the possibility of the knot transitioning to its final state of equilibrium. You stopped the test before the threshold load at which morphing is triggered. Although it is likely that you will tender a counter-argument that 'body weight only' loading is valid and sufficient to rule out any likelihood of morphing. But this ignores the underlying truth of the knots structural transitory state.
I surmise that you will continue to defend your views - no matter what alternative evidence is tendered.
For me, its not worth continuing any further debate on these topics.
-
Hi dear all, I would like to share my working notes on 'Cruise to Bends". It will also be included to "My working Notes Part 5". The link is :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qiflT5YAY9KTMF2H-yvHOYV-fJDvCbmG/view?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have some amendments in "My Working Notes 7". That is the Hash Bend is identical to Yia Bend as shown in "My Working Notes 1". Therefore, the Hash Bend is re-named to Yia Bend. Thankyou for your attention.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
In my view - with regard to your schematic images - the central overlap between the 2 loops are 'crossing points'.
The inversion and/or exchanging of these 'crossing points' results in a different final knot geometry. There are always 2 crossing points.
Interestingly, inverting the crossing points does not alter the chirality of each loop.
All of this is in addition to whether the loops are inter-linked or superposed.
You are starting to get into 'big data' - and it is hard to draw any conclusions in the way it is all presented.
Your naming conventions don't help - and presumes that you are the discoverer/inventor (when this may not be the case).
It would be good to group and classify these baseline structures into a coherent and meaningful array.
I like what you are doing - particularly because you appear to moving away from tying methods and instead focusing on underlying structure.
If you could somehow take all of your work - re-structure it into a clear and concise whole - and draw clear relationships and outcomes into a theoretical conclusion. This would bring together all of our knowledge and provide a means to classify bends.
Someone else has tried to do this a while ago - and I cant remember his name - but it was along very similar lines to what you are now doing. Although this I think this other person focused only on a select number of bends (zeppelin, riggers bend, butterfly, etc). His work was available as a download in pdf format.
I wish I could recall his name and where to find his work...
Mark G
EDIT NOTE:
I think we could be on the cusp of breaking new ground in the classification of knots - going beyond a mere arbitrary numbering system (ie ABoK numbers).
Big data bring big opportunities to re-assess the way we think about knots/bends.
Bends that are built from inter-linked loops:
[ ] crossing points
[ ] inverting the crossing points
[ ] loop chirality
[ ] inverting the loop chirality
[ ] symmetric versus asymmetric geometry
Bends that are built from superposed loops:
[ ] crossing points
[ ] inverting the crossing points
[ ] loop chirality
[ ] inverting the loop chirality
[ ] symmetric versus asymmetric geometry
From this...
[ ] knots (bends) that are jam resistant
[ ] knots (bends that are vulnerable to jamming
[ ] knot stability and security (increased or decreased)
[ ] affect of different rope diameters
[ ] affect of different rope materials (eg hmpe / slippery material - impact of this?)
-
Someone else has tried to do this a while ago - and I cant remember his name - but it was along very similar lines to what you are now doing. Although this I think this other person focused only on a select number of bends (zeppelin, riggers bend, butterfly, etc). His work was available as a download in pdf format.
I wish I could recall his name and where to find his work...
Mark G
I believe you may be referring to the file - Bends-comparison-release-2013March9.pdf authored by Charles Hamel.
Hope that is correct. If not it is a fine document anyway.
SS
-
Thanks Scott,
Nice find :)
yChan needs to look at this document closely...
Here is the link if anyone is interested.
Link: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwiZ4tSKlafaAhUCiLwKHeqDDrcQFgg3MAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcharles.hamel.free.fr%2Fknots-and-cordages%2FPUBLICATIONS%2FBends-comparison-release-2013March9.fdp&usg=AOvVaw1GVt9A6DGCV53cWcyB61Iv
NOTE: He has reversed the file extension from .pdf tp .fdp
-
Hi dear all,
Here is the link of "My Working Notes" Part 8. I would like to request our moderators to move this thread to "New Knot Investigations" for comments and investigation.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12OuijixfVDF5vWwUfgs-T66DRXoDauQS?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
I have had a quick look at some of these structures...
Of course, my eyes and ears immediately noticed the false Zeppelin bend (what you incorrectly call 'false hunters bend') at tying method #16 and #17.
Obviously, this particular knot structure is not 'new' - it has been published before.
All you have done is apply some trick tying methods that induce instability as soon as load is applied...and the knot undergoes forced transformation into the resultant 'false Zeppelin'.
I am not clear on exactly what revelation this brings to the table?
It doesn't tell us anything new about the underlying structure of the false Zeppelin bend.
I might also point out that Phil Smith discovered the (#1425a) 'Riggers bend' and published it much earlier that Edward Hunter. So technically, your use of the name 'Hunters bend' is incorrect.
Also, the Phil Smith 'Riggers bend' (#1425a) is built from 2 interlinked loops whereas the Zeppelin bend is built from 2 superposed loops.
This has been pointed out to you previously...which you seem to willfully ignore?
At the end of the day - I think your work has merit - but you should be cautious with posting (or requesting) in 'new knot investigations' if some content isn't in fact new.
I am of the view that a new tying method doesn't constitute a 'new' knot.
The resultant knot is still the same - regardless of how you arrived at it.
-
Hi dear all,
Thanks for your opinion on "My Working Notes".
After my Part 2 had been posted in "Chit Chat", I have had an idea to seperate the files of "The Other Tying Methods" and the "New Bends", but in view of the fact that people have read the formate of Parts 1 and 2, I put aside this thought.
From the very begining, "My Working Notes" were always distributed to my friends with covers (see attached photos), but not in this forum. You might find that the contents were classified into "Other Tying Methods of Some Bends" and "New Bend", that are what "My Working Notes" presented. Eventally as there were some discussions taken place after Part 7 posted, this thread was agreed to moved to "Knotting Concepts and Explorations". Later, I in seeing that the discussions were over and come to an end, I posted the Part 8 and requested to move the thread to "New Knot Investigations" for the reason that it contains "New" bends and I am expecting for comments and investigations as well as those previous posted Parts.
I deeply apologised for confusing you all, especially Mark. He has given me good points and arose my intention to seperate the topics.
I will work on two new folders, they are "The Other Tying Methods of some Bends" and "New Bends", and post to this forum under relevant topics (Please advise). They will be including the contents of bends from Parts 1 to 8 and some more to come. Some amendments would also be ready to make for I have found some of my so called "New" bends were mentioned/published in this forum before my work, and would like to use the names so mentioned in this forum until further discovery.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
One more file of the Corrick Bend was added to the Part 8, please up-date. Thanks.
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have updated "My Working Notes" to three folders as in the following links. They are "My New Bends", "My New Knots" and "My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots". I sincerely need you comments on my "New" knots and like to share with you all and will update as required.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated 2 of my working notes "My New Bends" and "My Other Tying Methods of Some Knots". Some "New" Bends and some tying methods are added/revised in these folders. Some previously submitted old files whick now marked with a suffice 'CC' are to be superseded by the new files with the same names.
I appreciate you would take time to view these folders. Your comments are always valuable to me. If any of my knots are found appeared previously, please let me know. I will be very much appreciated and revise my working notes. The links are :
"My New Bends" : https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Knots" : https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
That's a lot of work you have done yChan - and it is appreciated!
If I may offer some critical feedback:
I think the way in which you present all of your loop constructs (from which the end-to-end joining knots are built) could be tabulated/arranged in a more meaningful way.
Take #1053 Butterfly eye knot as an example...
This knot can be boiled down to the following key points:
1. It is built from inter-linked loops of opposite chirality (S+Z or Z+S) - it can't be constructed from same chirality loops.
2. Both tails exit in the same direction in parallel.
3. It is an asymmetrical bend.
4. It is appears to be totally jam resistant when through loaded, but jams when eye loaded.
5. In eye knot form, it is TIB (can be tied without access to either end).
6. It is close to #1425A - in that if one sides chirality is reversed, you end with #1425A (which is how Phil Smith arrived at his 'Riggers bend').
In relation to the above, it is useful to show the Zeppelin and #1425A Riggers bend side-by-side with #1053 Butterfly. This makes the information more meaningful.
The way in which you currently present your data, meaning tends to be lost.
With regard to some of your tying methods - the reality is that many have initial transient dressing states that quickly transform and/or capsize into their final stable form. when load is applied. I'm unclear on how these unstable transient dressing states are useful for understanding the final (stable) form of a knot?
In other words, what is the point of the myriad of transient forms that undergo a transformation as soon as load is applied?
It reminds me of the trick ways of tying #1010 Bowline - the end result is still #1010 - the trick tying method doesn't tell us much about the final form (eg I refer you to #1014). The are other ways of arriving at #1010...but the end result is still #1010.
-
Hi Mark and all,
Thanks to Mark for his feedback. I am very much appreciated.
As to Mark' suggestion, I have already had files in categorizing these bends. I will post them in another thread shortly within this week. Hope that they will be useful in knotting.
I believe knotting is an art and tying methods are art too. We may/can tie a knot in a certain method/way. Why not know more. One can play a song with piano. Why not allow others to play the same song with some other instruments.
Happy knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated 2 of my working notes "My New Bends" and "My Other Tying Methods of Some Knots". Files marked with a suffice 'CC' are to be superseded by the new files with the same names. Some new bends are added.
"My New Bends" : https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" : https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have updated 2 folders. Some 'New' bends and some other tying methods are added to these folders. I have also posted a folder 'Bends Classed By Starts' in another post. Please enjoy.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have updated 2 folders. Some 'New' bends and some other tying methods are added to these folders. Please enjoy.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have updated my folders "My New Bends", "My New Knots" and "My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots". For easy reference, a list of amendment are attached to each folders and is also attached herewith.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
"My New Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
yChan,
Thanks for all your work.
However, have you ever pondered why you don't seem to be getting any replies or interaction from anyone?
Surely you must be asking yourself this question.
Even Xarax has not commented (privately) - and this is saying something.
...
Okay - here is my opinion.
Your work constitutes big data - and big data can get lost in translation very easily.
The human brain is a complex and remarkable organ - but the human brain needs to find order and patterns to make sense of the information it sees/hears/feels.
Solutions:
1. Forget about the various tying methods that induce deliberate instability - which simply arrive at the same end result anyway.
For example, the Zeppelin bend boils down to two (2) superposed loops of opposite chirality.
And with this fact, you can either arrive at a Zeppelin bend that is S/Z chirality or in Z/S chirality.
In your pdf file titled "OTZeppelinBendop.pdf" - you show the final S/Z form (front and back) - but offer nothing beyond that?
All 3 of the tying methods you show to arrive at a Zeppelin bend induce deliberate instability - yet all arrive at the same end result.
You should simply show the two superposed loops (with opposite chirality) - with one base pair arriving at the S/Z form and the other base pair arriving at the Z/S form.
In my view, your work on the Zeppelin bend is not a full and proper presentation of the Zeppelin bend - because you presume that there is only the S/Z form.
And you do not show the arrangement of the two superposed loops - with their chirality reversed - to arrive at the S/Z and Z/S final forms.
Another example is the #1053 Butterfly eye knot (TIB version).
There are multiple ways of tying this knot - but all arrive at the same finish line...which is the #1053 Butterfly.
Do any of these tying methods tell us about the geometry of the knot and how it works?
It actually all comes down to two (2) loops - which are inter-linked and of opposite chirality.
There is a close relationship between #1425A and #1053...and this is best seen via examining the base pair loops for each knot.
The various tying methods don't reveal this or provide insight into the underlying geometry...
2. With all of your end-to-end joining knots (ie 'bends') - you show no relationship to corresponding eye knots.
All end-to-end joining knots have four (4) possible corresponding eye knots.
EDIT NOTE: 6 if you take into account chirality...for example, there are a total of six (6) possible eye knots that correspond to the Zeppelin bend in all of its Z/S and S/Z forms. And there are 6 possible corresponding eye knots derived from the Butterfly bend (when accounting for both Z/S and S/Z geometries).
This can be confusing though...because it is the general convention to show a bend in one geometric form (eg Z/S) and then derive the corresponding eye knots from that form.
But, if you take into account all of the possible chiralities, it turns out there are six (6) corresponding eye knot to a bend.
You'll see this is virtually all knot books...in that the author will only show a bend in one chirality - and not show its opposite chirality.
You should have a closer look at your latest presentation of 'Crossing knot South and North'.
In reality, your presented 'eye knots' correspond to the #1439 Carrick bend.
3. I believe that you should show end-to-end joining knots and their corresponding eye knots in the same view/page of your document.
This would make your data more meaningful.
In any case, several experienced IGKT members have already discussed at length the correspondence between end-to-end joining knots and their related eye knots.
Why not venture down this path?
I even recall Xarax (years ago) declaring that if you had tied a 'bend' - you had also (by definition) also tied its corresponding eye knot!
I am not 100% with him on this - as it can get rather complicated - and I think it is best to just tie them and show the direct correspondence (in side-by-side imagery).
This is also in part due to the fact that some of the time, one of the corresponding eye knots can be weird looking - eg one of the corresponding Zeppelin eye knots is very close the #1062 (per Ashley).
4. With all of your loop diagrams that create an end-to-end joining knot, it seems pointless to show arrangements that deliberately induce instability.
Fact - all end-to-end joining knots have their SParts (standing parts) axially aligned (ie 180 degrees in opposition). They are never aligned at right angles...
Many of your loop base pairs are rotated out of axial alignment - which simply induces an instability as soon as load is applied - and the knot will automatically (by default) try to axially align itself.
It therefore makes no sense to show this? I think you should only present your loops in base pairs with the SParts in axial alignment.
5. I think you need to reconsider your understanding of what a 'loop' is.
A loop has chirality, an eye does not.
All of your base pair loops (for tying bends) will have a particular chirality - which is either S or Z.
What you describe as a 'loop knot' is really a 'fixed eye knot'. The resulting fixed eye has no chirality, its simply a round eye (like an eye bolt from a hardware store).
Now, if the 'eye' was not fixed - ie its was slipping...then it would be a noose.
For example, the simple #1010 Bowline is a fixed eye knot (the eye is non slipping).
6. You offer no information about jamming or security.
For example, the Zeppelin bend is totally jam resistant while the #1425A Riggers bend jams.
#1053 derived Butterfly bend is jam resistant when through loaded from SPart to SPart (ie axially loaded) but its corresponding eye knot (#1053) jams when eye loaded.
Again, the Butterfly bend has 4 corresponding eye knots - only one of which is 'TIB' (#1053).
I would also suggest investigating which corresponding eye knots are 'TIB'. Is there a rule for TIB eye knots... ie why are some TIB and others not?
7. You offer nothing about symmetry.
For example, the Zeppelin bend has point inversion symmetry.
How would you describe #1452 Ashley bend in terms of symmetry?
Does the type of symmetry play a role in security or jam resistance?
None of this is investigated.
Jam resistance is certainly a measure of a particular knots 'efficiency' - and is a desirable quality.
...
There are some typo errors in the naming of one or two of your pdf files - and a few other errors - but I wont go into further details...
-
Hi all,
My folders have just been revised. The List of Amendment (2) is attached.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
However, have you ever pondered why you don't seem to be getting any replies or interaction from anyone?
I'll answer for myself. I just tried to go through the 4 pages of this thread and all the Google Drive links. It's overwhelming. Give me the Cliff's Notes version and point me in the direction of the practicality of all this.
-
Hi all,
I have just updated my knotting folders and attached herewith the Amendment Lists. The links are :-
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
"My New Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=sharing
"Bends Classed by Starts" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kGG0h_0QQ2eIxhEquySzNBUC0O9li1dv?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
Some update have been made.
yChan
-
Hi all,
The folders are updated and more bends are added. Please enjoy.
yChan
-
When claiming a 'new' knot - the normal process is to present it so others can assess its originality.
What you are doing is publishing a range of knots and then claiming (after the fact) they are all your own personal creations.
This is wrong.
To be honest, I have started to simply ignore your work for a range of reasons - the claim of originality being one of the principal drivers for this.
Be that as it may - I thought I'd take a very quick glance at some of your alleged claims of originality...
And my eye spotted your "Riggers Eight Bend".
This is not your original creation.
Xarax and I had been experimenting with this idea a number of years ago.
And this is just one claim of yours that I am refuting with just one quick glance.
I am of the view that several more knots could be found which are being falsely claimed by you as original.
I would also point out that some of the underlying principals you present are incorrect.
You attempt to describe the direction (geometry) of a 'loop' in terms of clockwise and anti-clockwise.
This is wrong...a loop is described by chirality (ie handedness).
Concepts such a clockwise, up, down, left and right require a reference frame - which is only meaningful to the person who is attempting to describe it.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your comments.
I am not publishing any great work. I am just sharing my work and always revise/refine them to update versions. Anyone's quick glance and comment will help to refine my work.
I have always making amendments when I found the knots are mentioned/discovered before me. I always appreciate everyone could give me information as I have mentioned before, because we do not have search engine or a knot library.
Thanks to Xarax who has just sent me all/some of his new bends. And I will try to compare mine with his and will include his bends to my lists and revise accordingly.
I agree we should use chirality in describing loop and twist. I will try to fix them in the coming issue.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
The folders are updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hello yChan,
Some comments about your 'TailsTuckingOpOvList(1).pdf' page...
This is for the page marked '1'.
You have listed the Riggers bend underneath an image of 2 superposed loops of the same chirality.
The Riggers bend is created from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality (S/S or Z/Z).
Your tail crossing and then tucking through the centre actually forces the initial dressing state to tumble and transform - into the Riggers bend (which is now back to its true form with 2 inter-linked loops).
I think this is a 'trick' manoeuvre - because your photo showing 2 superposed loops is transitory.
Also, the image to the far right (neat and new bend) isn't 'new'. Its the false Zeppelin bend (on page 1).
Unless of course the loops continue to transform over the page (2) - but it isn't clearly stated to the reader if further transforms continue into page 2?
You also have a reference to the "Rigger cross east bend".
The notional concept of 'east' and 'west' is meaningless.
Xarax had already presented 2 tail crossings of the Riggers bend in 2011 (Riggers X1 and Riggers X2 bends).
The Riggers X1 bend is very interesting because it is a different dressing and orientation of #1426.
Of course - there are S/S and Z/Z orientations...
#1426 as shown by Ashley misses the more natural dressing state that results in Riggers X1 bend (per Xarax). Ashley appears to have missed the Xarax (Riggers X1) dressing - which actually is only a simple tail re-orientation away from the #1425A Riggers bend!
Note also that Ashley's bend (#1452) could also be viewed as an axially rotated Riggers bend...
Have a look at my paper on the Riggers bend for details here: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (VER 1.4e).
-
Hi Mark and dear all,
Thank you very much for your comment.
The pdf ?TailTucking...?are tabulated the bends with the same tying methods and with different paths of tail tuckings to form bends. So there eventually exist transformations. I have explained previously that my tying methods are faster access or the other ways to form the inter-locked, superposed loops etc. In a short time, I will post up some preference lists/tables in the loops forms families for more ease reference for interested parties.
Neat & New Bend - We have discussed before in the forum. Finally we were told it was posted and named Neat & New Bend in early KM. I stick to originality and call it Neat & New Bend. Mark, you may call it any name you wish.
Rigger Cross East Bend - I refer to the book ?A New System of Knotting? by H. Asher, at page 13. You may also find and compare my tying methods of Rigger?s Bend and ABOK#1426.
I suggest you in talking about Rigger?s Bend, you must mention Shake Hands Bend. For both bends have the same chirality and inter-locked/inter-linked loops, but different entry path of the WE of the right loop. Just SS or ZZ is not accurate or clear to describe the loops forms.
I am always appreciate to every one like Xarax, Mark and you all to help me to refine and update my knotting folders. I have limited knowledge and sources in knotting and still in the mist and exploring. Should you find any of my new bends are discovered or posted before, please do inform me. I will update my folders as I do it always.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hello yChan,
My comments were specifically in relation to 'page 1' of that pdf document.
If a lay person was reading your document and noticed the words "neat and new bend" - they will apply the ordinary meaning to it.
They wont know anything about the history of that particular structure or anything about Desmond Mandeville.
Thats because you provide absolutely zero context.
So the words "neat and new bend" have no historical context when read in isolation on your 'page 1'.
You should use footnotes to explain what is going on.
You could add a footnote stating that Desmond Mandeville presented 'neat and new bend' + the 'Poors man's pride' in Knotting Matter issue 4 July 1983.
This would provide historical context for the reader of your paper.
As it currently stands, readers of your paper would simply think that you invented a 'neat and new bend'.
In my Riggers bend paper - you will see that I use footnoting and try to give the reader historical background.
Does this make any sense yChan?
Also, your superposed loops is a trick tying method of the Riggers bend.
It belies the true underlying geometry - and I think this will then be confused with the Zeppelin bend (Poor man's pride).
The Zeppelin bend is actually created from 2 superposed loops...
Either your paper is presenting a series of trick tying methods - or its trying to be a technical thesis on various end-to-end joining knots... which is it trying to be?
Also, I note that I am the only person that appears to bother giving you feedback...
Your paper - in its present form - is a confused jumble of information.
Your trick tying methods overwhelm and obfuscate the real underlying geometries and principles of how the bends are created and their inter-relationship to other bends.
The information is hard to find and hard to make sense of - in terms of a concise theory.
With regard to Mandeville, it is possible to reach a conclusion that he was the original discoverer of the Zeppelin bend (if we take his literal word from Knotting Matters #4).
In that issue, he states that he named it poor mans pride in 1961.
We can extract from this that he tied it in 1961.
This pre-dates Bob Thrun - who presented his 'An easily untied bend' in 1966.
The problem is that we have no proof other than Percy's word for it.
In Bob Thrun's case, we have printed evidence dating back to1966 (a caving newsletter).
Rigger Cross East Bend - I refer to the book ?A New System of Knotting? by H. Asher, at page 13. You may also find and compare my tying methods of Rigger?s Bend and ABOK#1426.
yChan - I have tried to explain that the notional concept of 'east' and 'west' is meaningless.
There is no east and west - and even if you wanted it to be 'east' - I could just as easily make it 'west' via mirror reflection or by holding the knot in an opposite sense.
All of these knot tying notions that people have tried to introduce make no sense...because they can only have meaning to the person who creates it - within their reference frame.
And this is where they all come unstuck... because they fail to consider the concept of a reference frame.
Harry Asher did break new ground in his book - The Alternative Knot Book.
But - it is not the final definitive word on knot tying notation and reference frames.
Asher missed an opportunity to explain and fully demonstrate what is going on with loops and associated bends.
He also confuses and mixes terms such as 'loop' and 'turn'.... there are instances where he trips a little and suddenly speaks in terms of loops - when earlier in his book he uses the term 'turn'.
Anyhow, I think you can cite Asher but I think it unwise to heavily lean on Asher as an authority.
EDIT NOTE:
In a quick glance of your "Legends of loop chart" - I notice a technical error.
RE: Your image at "4" - RB / 1426
You suggest that #1426 is also Riggers bend via the initals "RB".
This is incorrect.
Have a look at my paper on the Riggers bend - and in particular the Riggers X1 bend as tied by Xarax.
Ashley's dressing state is different.
You can say that #1426 is topologically equivalent to Xarax's Riggers X1 bend (which he presented in 2011).
But, you cannot state that #1426 is the Riggers bend (that would mislead the reader).
Xarax's discovery is a natural orientation of the rope segments and is a tails crossed variant of #1425A.
Ashley's illustration is different - and requires some manipulation to achieve that final dressing state.
Furthermore, there are in fact Z/Z and S/S orientations...
yChan, I am spotting these technical errors with only a quick glance of your paper... this leads me to believe that you don't get your papers peer reviewed?
How do you expect to correct all these errors on your own if working in isolation?
I appear to be the only person who bothers to give you feedback... why is this so I wonder?
Part of the problem is that your work constitutes what I call 'BIG data'.
They way in which you present and organize the content is confusing to a casual reader.
You have done a marvelous amount of work - it just needs to be re-organised and presented in a way that the reader can more easily understand it.
You also need to delete all of your 'trick' tying methods - as it only serves to confuse the true underlying geometry of the bends you present.
2nd EDIT NOTE:
1. In virtually all of your base loop images. the SParts are visually represented too small in length.
The casual reader will find it hard to discern which part is which.
You should re-draw all of the base loop pairs with longer SParts (ie drawn longer in reference to the tails).
2. The page titled "Cruise to bends":
Its good to see that you have started to apply the concept of chirality.
For example, #1425A Riggers bend can be tied as either S/S or Z/Z chirality.
Same goes for most of the other bends - eg Zeppelin can be tied as either S/Z or Z/S.
3. You again identify 'RB" (Riggers bend) as being #1426. It isn't.
4. #1452 Ashley bend and #1425A Riggers bend are both interesting base loop pairs to compare.
Ashley bend can be conceptualized as an axially rotated Riggers bend.
You should show these 2 base pair loops next to each other to draw the readers attention. There is also another axially rotated version of the Riggers bend (shown in my Riggers bend paper).
-
Hi Mark and dear all,
Once again, thanks to Mark who has input more comment.
I do not think I should need to use footnotes to my papers. No historical background notes are required for my readers.
Your question about my paper ?Legends of Loop Chart?. In the text there are two lines read as this:-
3. each end tucking into the centre in opposite direction with crossing,
4. each end tucking into the centre in opposite direction with crossing in elbow twisted.
I have clearly states that the tails tucking are in the manner as such for the bends concern. While #1426 is with tails crossing and Rigger?s Bend is without tails crossing. They both start with the same loops form. So I believe they are the same family. You said I am incorrect in #1426. Please light me up for what you got.
I would guess you are confined to some known methods, and perhaps the tying methods (Overhand Knot Base/Start) presented in ABOK only.
To illustrate the parts of a loop?s standing part is not by having its length longer than the length after crossing to the working end. I have clearly denoted it by two white stripes as a whipping to the working end. It is enough and appropriate. So for your suggestion on this point is of nothing constructive.
I am sure your quick glance leads to some misunderstandings. You may not notice that I have not included the known tying methods in the early notes for I emphasize at "My Other Tying Methods". But currently, seeing that in some known bends are worth to be included with their known methods. All my tying methods are also included with the basic loops forms. I just share my finding for everyone. Then say, leave the tricks to the people who are interested. You are welcome to ignore them, but do not speak for the others.
yChan
-
yChan,
Again - one last time in the hope that you understand!
In point form:
1.
#1426 should not be identified as the Riggers bend.
It is not technically accurate to indicate #1426 as being the Riggers bend.
If a casual reader looks at your paper and sees "#1426 = Riggers bend" and then checks "ABoK" - they will be confused.
Riggers bend is illustrated at #1425A (not #1426).
#1426 as drawn by Ashley has a different dressing state.
Xarax had tied his Riggers X1 bend in 2011 - which is a natural orientation of #1426 - and results in a the form of a tails crossed Riggers bend (X1).
On your paper - there is no context and no footnoting to explain anything.
A casual reader can't glean any of this information from each of your isolated pages.
There is no context for them.
Its all what I refer to as "BIG data" - and for the average person - its an overwhelming amount of information that is presented in a way that is not user friendly.
2. On the page titled "Variations and Features":
You use descriptors such as overhand, underhand, Twist clockwise, twist anti clockwise, cross over and cross under.
All of the descriptors rely on a reference frame.
The notional concept of 'over' and 'under' is dependent on the reference frame of the user. 'Under' can become 'over' depending on your perspective.
This notion also wrongly assumes that a bend can only exist in one orientation - lets say S/S. It can also exist in mirror form as Z/Z.
However, you can make reference to "tails being opposite" and "tails being parallel" as this requires no reference frame (which you have done).
If you absolutely insist on using up/down/left/right etc... you would have to clearly indicate the reference frame from the point-of-view of the knot tyer. I think all these approaches are doomed - and indeed they have all failed in the past (eg Asher's 'new' system never really took hold). Its sort of like being in orbit around the Earth in a space station. They is no 'up', 'down' etc. You would have to specify a clear and unambiguous reference frame for the user.
3. On the page titled "List of my other tying method knots":
On this page you correctly identify Riggers bend as #1425A.
And you identify #1426 as 'twofold overhand bend'.
BUT, in other parts of your paper - you identify #1426 as Riggers bend.
This is confusing to a casual reader.
4. On the page titled "Legends of loop chart":
Here again you indicate #1426 as being Riggers bend.
This contradicts your other page and is confusing to the casual reader.
Here again you identify a "Neat and new" bend (NNB).
On that page, there is zero context or historical acknowledgment.
Its as if you have brushed history aside.
You should attribute that bend to Desmond Mandeville - or at least have a footnote reference.
A casual reader of that page will simply assume that "Neat and new" means that it is your personal discovery (which it isn't).
Also, on that page, you show the RB (Riggers bend) with Z/Z chirality.
It can also exist as S/S chirality - both being valid.
A casual reader will simply assume that the orientation of the loops as you depict them is the only possible dressing state (when it isn't).
5.
I stand by my assertion that all of your images require longer SParts in comparison to the tails.
It gets confusing to the eye...the human eye can only discern so much...and then it gets confusing.
You are not making your paper user friendly.
6. The page titled "Types and sets":
This page is meaningless to a casual reader.
Its BIG data - it needs to be presented in a way that a casual reader to find meaning and understanding.
I have at least a basic understanding of knots...and even I can't glean anything meaningful from that page.
7. On the page titled "Observations and Summary:
You again use terms such as 'over-laid' and 'under-laid' and 'interlocked' and then 'inter-locked the other way'.
These terms can only have meaning within a defined reference frame.
Your term 'interlocked the other way' is meaningless in this context (eg which way?).
You again make reference to 'NNB - Neat and New Bend' but give the reader no historical background and no acknowledgement to Desmond Mandeville.
Because casual readers are given no information - they will apply the literal and ordinary meaning to that phrase.
They will simply assume that you are the original discoverer.
You use terms such as 'inter-locked' without a full and proper explanation.
You state that the Zeppelin bend is a "non interlocked bend".
Depending on your notional view of the structure of a Zeppelin bend - one can view all bends of this 'class' as having an inter-locking mechanism.
I could present a different view - one stating that the Zeppelin bend is built from 'linked' overhand knots of opposite chirality.
In contrast, you state that the Riggers bend is 'interlocked'. One could also argue that the overhand knots are interwoven.
And here again you make a reference to #1426. You state that it is differs from #1425A Riggers bend!
And yet, in other parts of your paper, you confuse the casual reader by indicating that 'RB (Riggers bend) is #1426.
So which is it?
You state that "9 patterns are found from 64 sets of loop formations".
You then refer to "4 types".
Its really hard for the casual reader to extract a meaning from this...
It sounds like you have made a significant discovery - and you need to make it easy for the reader to follow your theory.
Is "64 sets of loop formations" the maximum limit? Can there be more?
8. Some of your "tying methods" are what I refer to as "trick tying methods".
They deliberately induce instability - forcing the structure to rotate and capsize into its final energy stable state.
The starting positions for these trick tying methods obfuscate the true underlying geometry of these bends.
All the rotating, flipping, tumbling and capsizing tells us nothing - its just an illusion.
Is your paper trying to be a serious thesis on bends?
Or is it a paper on trick tying methods?
You should not include all the trick tying methods within the final data set analysis - because it would introduce a 'false positive'.
You should find the simplest energy stable orientation of the 2 working ends - and begin to construct your bends from that starting config.
For example, the Riggers bend is built from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality (either S/S or Z/Z).
The Zeppelin bend is built from 2 superposed loops of opposite chirality (either S/Z or Z/S)... and so on.
...
yChan, my intentions can be characterized as being good will.
I am trying to provide constructive critique.
Your paper is BIG data - and it needs to be presented in a way that is meaningful to the reader.
In its current form, the content is confusing and non intuitive.
-
Hi Mark and dear all,
In the page ?Legends of Loop Chart?, the abbreviations are used to denote bends. Two bends RB and 1426 are placed together in order to show they are family members, that is they are of the same loops form. I believe you have mistook them as a single bend. Also you have missed the text just at the left hand side of the graphics of the same page (see attached). All the abbreviations are well defined. Your quick glance does not work right for you. You are totally misleading me and our readers.
#1426 can be tied with the same loops form of RB but with different tails tucking manner as I have described on my last thread. You may find their tying method very much alike in my knotting notes. I wonder why you disagree #1426 is not within the family of RB. Please let us know.
I do not think my readers need to know more about the historical background of bends in my papers. A bends by the name new would lead readers to feel it is new is absurd for me. Octopus Bend does not hunt for fishes.
My papers and folders are posted as they were by that time, just for sharing, nothing more. Knotting is one of my hobbies when I was young. In the old days, you have to publish books/journals in order to get expose. By now, we can post and share in the media. We share, we learn, explore and conduct further digging. As you find something more, you will revise and update and refine it. So, your question: Is "64 sets of loop formations" the maximum limit? Can there be more? My answer is : By that time I found 64. I did not say it is the limit. It may be more. Let us find more. I believe you have always revise/refine your papers, for findings are coming. There is no definite stop.
yChan
-
yChan,
There is no misleading and no misunderstanding.
I sometimes wonder why I bother to give you critical feedback - I mean, whats in it for me?
My point is that it is potentially confusing to associate #1426 with the Riggers Bend.
It is easier and less confusing to just indicate #1425A as Riggers bend - and this would tie your paper seamlessly with Ashley.
The dressing state that Ashley shows for #1426 is different to the Riggers bend form.
To be more accurate, you could state that #1426 results in Xarax's Riggers X1 dressing - and acknowledge Xarax in your paper.
Your page does not provide detail or information about the close link between #1426 and Riggers X1 bend as tied by Xarax.
It just shows a loop base pair with "RB" and "1426" as being the same. Clarification should be added...
Another way to conceptualize this is that the Riggers bend tail crossings as presented by Xarax in 2011 (as X1 and X2) are distinct geometries.
You could show the final dressing state next to each loop base pair - and that would remove any doubt as to whats going on.
Or, you can just ignore it... ie, ignore these tail crossing variants and the relationship with Xarax's X1?
Part of the issue with your paper is that the loop base pairs are not immediately associated with their final end-to-end joining knot (ie bend).
We see the base pair loops - but we do not have the ability to correlate them to a final form.
The loops exist in an 'arbitrary' state - with only a number - with no visual reference to see what it results in.
Your paper would certainly benefit if you could associate a loop base pair with its final form - ie side-by-side.
...
As for historical background...
Your options are ignore it - as appears to be your preference.
Or, you could try to clarify that which is your original creation versus someone else's.
The casual reader will simply assume that 'Neat and New bend' is your original creation (when it isn't).
Only seasoned knot geeks would know that 'Neat and new' is linked to Desmond Mandeville. The lay public (casual reader) wouldn't know this...
All of your pages are presenting information to the public - and exist as self-contained pages.
Readers can only go on the content they read and see - one page at a time.
Is your paper also intended for the casual reader who is interested in knots?
Or is it a personal record - only for your your own private research?
Or is it aimed only at existing knot tyers?
It does appear to be in the open public internet space - free for anyone to download and read.
That is, it appears that any casual reader could stumble across your work and see things like 'Neat and new' bend (and assume its your creation) and that #1426 is Riggers bend... and so on.
-
Hi Mark and dear all,
My paper are not issued singly. Through my Working Notes 1 to 8, readers may find in the folders of
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots", "My New Bends" and ?Bends Classed by Starts?. The so call ?trick?(in your word) are the access to form the basic loops forms of bends. They are well exist in the paper. Anyone can use it to complete the bends. It aims to provide more choices to knot tyers and select their favorites. There are not existing any means of confusion and fooling people.
Attached please find the file which I extract from my notes (not posted before). Try to tie the relevant bends and show their relations. How about your classification in bends, especially the #1426?
I was curious and have had asked you for the tying methods several times, and you ignored me. I think we all want to learn from you. Will you share to us? e.g. #1425, 1425A, 1426, 1452, Neat & New Bend and Zeppelin Bend. Thank you.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
yChan,
I believe that there may be language barriers going on here...
Your replies suggest that you are not properly understanding the concepts I have proposed.
For example... when I use the phrase "trick tying methods" - it is NOT intended as an insult and it is NOT implied to mean that you are fooling people or intending to cause confusion.
I was curious and have had asked you for the tying methods several times, and you ignored me. I think we all want to learn from you. Will you share to us? e.g. #1425, 1425A, 1426, 1452, Neat & New Bend and Zeppelin Bend. Thank you.
yChan, I am not "ignoring" you.
From my point of view, I am simply giving you critical feedback.
My intentions are one of good will.
That is, when I give up some of my personal time to read through your paper and then provide critical feedback - it is from the perspective of making improvements.
I note that nobody else appears to offer you any feedback... and I wonder why?
I can only comment from what I read and see on your paper.
It all appears to be freely available in the public internet space - and anyone could stumble across your work and then try to understand it.
A lot of what I have tried to explain is that your paper is essentially BIG DATA.
It is overwhelming to the casual reader.
There doesn't appear to be a contents page and/or an index - and each page presents information in a self-contained style.
There are a myriad of knot names that you have invented and a multitude of base loop pairs - and its hard to follow and make sense of.
Now, from your own point-of-view, it probably all makes sense.
Put yourself in the shoes of a casual reader who isn't a knot geek..what impression do you think they will form? Do you think they will be overwhelmed? Do you think they will easily understand everything?
I am not a total novice and have a basic grasp of some knots.
With my basic level of understanding, even I find it hard to follow what you have produced.
I am not stating that your work is no good.
I am not stating that you are fooling people.
I am not stating that you don't know your subject material.
The 'trick' tying methods induce instability and cause the base pair loops to tumble, rotate and reorient into the final energy stable state. I have tried to explain that all this tumbling, rotating and re-orientation doesn't help with understanding the real underlying geometry of a knot.
I suggest that you remove all of these 'trick' tying methods and move them to a different section of your paper and explain whats going on.
...
There isn't much you can learn from me yChan.
I don't have much to offer you.
There isn't anything I can share with you or others - that I haven't already offered.
Have a look at my paper on the Riggers bend if you like... you will see that I try to present information in a way that is 'relatively' easy to understand. I get a lot of help from Xarax and 'knotsaver' - both of these guys make me look like a total novice and continuously send me back to the drawing board with my tail between my legs.
My knowledge is pitiful in comparison to theirs...
My comments about #1426 were essentially framed to help you to make your paper clearer.
If people have a copy of Ashley Book of Knots (ABoK) - and then they read your paper - they might start to get a little confused.
I was simply trying to help you to make if easier to follow.
Yes - there is a correlation between #1426 and Riggers X1 bend.
But Riggers bend is illustrated at #1425A.
It be useful to show a few selected actual tied knots - so readers can reference your base pair loops against the actual knot that results from that pairing.
-
Hi all,
The folders are updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi Siriuso
Adding some constructive feedback.....
1. Compare your brick bend with Xarax capsized 2 2 Cube bend (MB18). You will find it's the same knot.
Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4122.msg24779#msg24779 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4122.msg24779#msg24779)
2. Knotsaver, points out that your Jamboree bend, is the reversed of B18. I believe his estimation, is indeed bang on. Try tying it.
Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4122.msg24780#msg24780 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4122.msg24780#msg24780)
3. Is Axos bend a symmetrical version of EHL? Too bad symmetrical means no tibness, if tied as a midline eyeknot. There is also an asymmetrical non-TIB variation, but i had no time to capture it. Moreover, it is closely related to the following asymmetrical TIB version as well.
Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6799.msg44806#msg44806 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6799.msg44806#msg44806)
4. I think Dagger and Rigger's eight bend are clone knots. Having tied this structure before, it was rather easy for me to track down the resemblance (don't worry, i am not claiming anything). I guess we are shortening the big list huh? Not really... :) (minus one). However, nice entagled figure eights.Generally, the figure eight base system, has been expanded by other knotters. Double larkshead, is familiar to me too.
5. I really love the helical locking mechanism of octopus bend, but unfortunately, it has come up before, while on no account, your inventiveness is being diminished. Knotsaver, tracks down its appearences at the following link(s). Might be the Helical Beauty, the reverse of walking beauty? ;)
Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5811.msg39347#msg39347 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5811.msg39347#msg39347)
6. Last but not least, your original remarkable Migg bend. Xarax shed some light on this knot among others that prompted my interest. Based on two interlocking nipping loops that have the tedency to open in a helical sense, instead of closing tightly around themselves, i believe it resists to jamming. Keeping the eight shaped, double S, as the main body locking mechanism, you may produce several structures by implementing variant tail lockings. Fine work!!Bravo!!
Keep on processing..........
I am sure you have hidden some knotting diamonds in these folders. It would be nice to provide some coordinates/hints by highlighting some knots, unless you want us to take full delight in nosing them out by going solo :) :D
-
Hi Siriuso
//...
6. Last but not least, your original remarkable Migg bend.
Xarax shed some light on this knot among others that prompted my interest.
Based on two interlocking nipping loops that have the tedency to open in a helical sense,
instead of closing tightly around themselves, i believe it resists to jamming.
Keeping the eight shaped, double S, as the main body locking mechanism,
you may produce several structures by implementing variant tail lockings.
Fine work!!Bravo!!
Thanks for your note of this knot (and my figuring out
what I needed to do to see it, eventually)! I've gone
out into this *region* with motivation from #1425,
and where one loses --by chance of alteration more
than design, for me-- interlocking overhands for
same shapes but w/o the particular crossing, and,
yes, they can be so non-jamming.
And, beyond that, some of the SParts' curvatures
look very good --slightly of decreasing-radius shape.
(I have had my illustrations and then a tied knot
in opposite orientations (dare I say "handedness"? :o )
and taken quite some time checking that they were
the same knot. And in one case, some quite distinct
dressing of the "same" knot.)
So, naturally, one looks to see how the basic structure
might be incorporated into an eye knot (as though I
need yet more to illustrate to my heap --but I AM
making some progress).
I am sure you have hidden some knotting diamonds in these folders.
It would be nice to provide some coordinates/hints by highlighting some knots,
unless you want us to take full delight in nosing them out by going solo :) :D
Once one has some several component structures
--some bight-collar & loop-collar options--, the multitude
of ways to combine them leads to overwhelming numbers
(IMO) !! And in the practical world, one must ask
Where would <this knot> be helpful?! So lovely,
the Migg, but I can't imagine it replacing the
ubiquitous fisherman's knot in the commercial-fishing
world. Now, were one to need to join ropes briefly
for towing out a vehicle, it would be great.
Thanks,
--dl*
====
-
Hi tsik_lestat and all,
1. Brick Bend - Thanks for telling me that it is the same as Cube Bend (B18). I will revise my folders.
2. Jamboree Bend - Yes it is the reverse of Cube Bend (B18).
3. Enhanced Harness Bend - It is already included in my folders and it is not the same as Axos Bend. Axos Bend starts with inter-locked loops, non-TIB. Xarax?s TTLME Knot, with inter-locked loops, looks like Axos Bend, but crossings are different.
4. Dagger Bend, Rigger?s Eight Bends and others - I am looking for more information and links which would help me to revise my folders.
5. Octopus Bend -Thanks to Knotsaver who gave the information. I will revise it as Tom?s Bend and include it to the known bends.
6. I hope we can share and work on more new bends. Though my classifications/tables are not met with some readers' desire, I wish they would be beneficial to some others.
7. More bends will come in a short time.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Once one has some several component structures
--some bight-collar & loop-collar options--, the multitude
of ways to combine them leads to overwhelming numbers
(IMO) !!
Trully, the unlimited combinations of those components seem to be frustratingly endless, but it appears that Ychan, has done the work for us, by narrowing the bandwidth of those overwhelming numbers. I am sure he has saved only those that looked decent to him, with interesting locking mechanisms, ruling many of them out.
Speaking of new mechanisms, check out how ychan comes to three very decent, original Catfish, Teepoo, U bends ,starting from the same initial configuration (same start). They certainly worth tying and further analyzing.
3. Enhanced Harness Bend - It is already included in my folders and it is not the same as Axos Bend. Axos Bend starts with inter-locked loops, non-TIB. Xarax?s TTLME Knot, with inter-locked loops, looks like Axos Bend, but crossings are different.
Where is it? Is it the one i had included in my EHL topic? I can't locate it in your folders. I didn't say that your Axos is the same with X's TTLME inline eyeknot , yet they share some structural resemblance.
Is your Whirls bend the reverse of Xarax's Hugo bend A?
Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg31980#msg31980
I am looking forward to your new stuff!Try to provide direct links to your new bends, in order to be avoided a labour intensive searching in your folders.
-
tsik_lestat,
The Enhanced Harness Bend is included in my folders "Bends Classed....", the pdf files are TyPaRiTu(1) and TClassHairpins(1). The link is:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kGG0h_0QQ2eIxhEquySzNBUC0O9li1dv?usp=sharing
Whirls Bend is the reverse of Hugo Bend.
yChan
-
Hi all,
The folders are updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
The folders are updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
The folders are updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders are updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Good day Sirius/yChan.
There sure are quite a bit of updates.
Please consider removing the updates that are no longer valid, there are just too many. Let?s make some room in storage.
Thank you ahead of time.
SS369
-
Hi SS369
Thanks for your comment. The List Amendment 1-17 pdfs. were deleted. Welcome for more suggestions.
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all,
My folders have been updated. Please enjoy and share.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Dear all,
Upon the moderator's request to release more space for the forum , I have deleted the jpg. of ListAmendment(s) as I presume these files are no longer be required after read.
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hello yChan,
With regard to your document titled; "My other tying methods of some known knots"
Loop formations chart of bends page 4 of 8:
With regard to the #1053 derived Butterfly bend (at #26 and #29):
The image at #29 needs to be amended.
I can see that you are trying to show both Z/S and S/Z geometry in your chart.
It gets complicated because the Butterfly is always S/Z chirality when viewed from the overlapping/riding side (tails pointing 'up').
When viewed from the parallel side, it is always Z/S chirality (tails pointing 'up').
Therefore, the images you show at #26 are topologically the same as #29 (if tying 2 different color ropes, you get a color inversion).
A Butterfly is created from 2 inter-linked loops of opposite chirality - that is its underlying geometry.
The tails always point in the same direction (ie they exit from the core on the same side).
...
Other than that, trying to focus on your other loops is all lost in translation due to 'big data' effect.
But, I can say that the images you show where the SParts are aligned at right angles (90 degrees) to each other are conceptually awkward (eg 'MB' bend).
You should axially align the SParts relative to each other - this is how the load path will propagate.
If you do this, it will show the tails on opposite sides (ie this is a distinguishing geometry of the Zeppelin bend and Riggers bend).
This contrasts with the Butterfly bend - where the tails are on the same side.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your comment. #29 is not right because the crossing layer is missing. I have got it with the crossing detail, it is being amended.
We know #1053 have the forms of S/Z and Z/S geometry and inversion, my chart should include, as well as other bends.
I am not understand what you are pointing at in your last paragraph. Please show it clear with aids of diagrams. If you are referring to the "Loops Formations Chart of Bends", the graphic presentations of the SParts and WEnds are so arranged to show the forms only.
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hello yChan,
Thank you for your work.
I appear to be the only person willing to make any comment on your body of work.
To be honest, I find it difficult and tedious to examine your work - there is no page numbering, and no user friendly table of contents or indexing to make it easy for a person to try to understand and/or follow your content.
Anyhow, a very brief bit of feedback - in relation to your so-called 'reversed Zeppelin bend' and 'reversed Riggers bend':
I am unclear if you are making a claim of originality for these structures? There is no way to definitively determine what your intent is (because the way you organize your content causes everything to be 'lost in translation' and "can't see the forest for the trees" effect). Link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-meaning-cant-see-forest-through-trees-jared-jerotz
Anybody who has tied a Zeppelin bend or Riggers bend (#1425A) has - by definition - has already tied your presentations.
One only has to pull on the 'tails' to get the same transposition effect.
All you have done is transposed the tails with the SParts (in both S/S and Z/Z chirality for the Riggers bend and S/Z and Z/S for the Zeppelin bend).
The transposed Zeppelin bend - when loaded as such - now jams (because there is no longer a toggle axis).
Transposing the tails with the SParts essentially defeats the mechanism which makes a Zeppelin bend jam proof.
I also see no clear benefit with a transposed Riggers bend (#1425A).
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi all, the notes are revised. The links are:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6M254Y0VsckVXMWc?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6bm1RQUNvTnhwTEk?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6enNvemJWTmxSaTg?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6eFpnNlJicmFYRXc? (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6eFpnNlJicmFYRXc?usp=sharing)worktime (https://www.worktime.com/)
Happy knotting
yChan
"uhty, so much and everything is clearly shown. Thank you very much, I'm sure it was not only useful to me.
Thanks again!)"
-
"uhty, so much and everything is clearly shown. Thank you very much, I'm sure it was not only useful to me.
Thanks again!)"
!
Warning: Technical criticism ahead!
Not intended to cause offense or harm - its simply technical criticism (sort of like a film critic reviewing a new movie).
If you are easily offended - STOP! Do not proceed past this point...
...
I always find it interesting how people perceive complex data/information and their individual preferences for how such data/information should be communicated.
I personally find yChan's presentation style deeply convoluted and non-user friendly.
That is not to say that I don't appreciate his efforts in developing his work - his efforts are appreciated.
Its just a shame that such a large and complex body of work is presented in a way that locks out most people, and obfuscates meaning.
The other aspect that somewhat concerns me is that on the few occasions where I do take a look at some sections of his work - I usually detect errors or inaccuracies.
I would need to charge my normal consultancy fees of $AUD $200 + GST per hour to look any deeper.
Also, the feedback and advice tendered in the past has been largely ignored (eg the photos are terrible - should not be taken against a background of textured couch/sofa).
...
Examples of inaccuracies:
The name; 'Alpine Butterfly bend'' doesn't need the 'alpine' moniker.
I've tied #1053 derived Butterfly bend in a desert, and jungle environment - no alpine in sight anywhere.
The use of 'Alpine' is parroted endlessly.
The claim that there are 9 tying methods for the Butterfly bend is just plain wrong.
The use of terms such as 'spiral drops' - is arbitrary and makes no sense.
The claim that there are a total of 4 tying methods for the Zeppelin bend is also patently false.
Furthermore, the permutations and combinations of tying methods reported for each 'bend' is not particularly useful or enlightening.
It doesn't tell you anything about the underlying structure and nature of the bend.
-
Hi dear all,
I am regretful and apologize to those readers who have found difficulties in reading my notes, tolerate the qualities of the photos and any errors made. I have emphasized folders/notes will be revised with new information including bends discovered by other knot tyers and valuable information from you. I could have the photos in better arrangement, but I prefer not to pay extra effort on this because it is handy for me.
You may find I have had dialogue with Mark in some other posts. He always neglects my counter requests and pays no responds. For his comment above, some are quite challenging. I decide not to respond any further. I am afraid I would be billed for his comment. Having no other better alternatives, I reluctantly to block our further communications.
Happy knotting
yChan
-
I am regretful and apologize to those readers who have found difficulties in reading my notes,
?
Not necessary to 'apologize '!
Thought experiment: if you make a movie - you should expect that film critics will provide feedback (and not all of it will be favorable).
If you are publishing to the world - you have to expect feedback - and not all of the feedback will be favorable (obviously).
The same goes for scientific technical papers - other scientists will refute or accept the results - that's how science progresses.
It seems that you have difficulty accepting criticism?
That's something that you need to work on yChan.
I am declaring that I think your photos should not taken against a convoluted background (eg a couch/sofa).
Convoluted backgrounds are distracting. A plain background is preferred.
I note that you will not accept or act on that advice.
Consider also that if people try to print your photos - a lot of ink toner will be used (and wasted) because of the background.
He always neglects my counter requests and pays no responds.
?
A strange comment.
You are retaliating instead of accepting my criticism graciously.
I am not going to invest hours of my personal time - and it would take days/weeks to sift through all of your documents.
That's time I will never get back - and I am too busy with my own projects.
I am not obligated to you - and my time is my own.
For his comment above, some are quite challenging
Its simply criticism of your paper.
You are publishing to the world - and so you should expect to receive technical criticism.
I think you have difficulty accepting criticism.
I urge you to read this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/evolution-the-self/200901/why-criticism-is-so-hard-take-part-1
Here is a paradigm for you yChan:
Try typing: "Thanks Mark - I can see your point of view. I will take your points into consideration. I am always trying to improve my published work".
Instead of retaliating.
...
Repeat of key criticisms:
1. Your work is presented in a way that is deeply convoluted - relationships between knots and how they work is obfuscated.
2. There is no index/contents and/or page numbering to relate to - which makes it hard to cross reference your content.
3. Your photos are terrible - you may dislike the word 'terrible' - and feel offended. That's something you need to work on :)
4. There are numerous errors throughout your work - I've pointed some of them out to you - its up to you to act on that information.
5. There is no way to extract meaning from your content - for example, what insights or conclusions can the public draw from your work?
And closing comment:
I do appreciate your efforts yChan - I think you missed that key point of my narrative.
I imagine that you have invested many hours of your time to produce this work.
Its just a shame that it is presented in a way that locks out most people - and it is hard for the layperson to extract any useful meaning.
Even for a knot geek - it is challenging to sift through your work and try to extract meaning.
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated this folder, and added the "List of My New Bends" with discovery dates. Share and enjoy.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have added the "List of My New Knots" with discovery dates. Share and enjoy.
"My New Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folder, enjoy and share.
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
"My New Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
"My New Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
"My New Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=s
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=s
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=s
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=s
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=s
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=s
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
"My New Knots"
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=drive_link
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
"My New Knots"
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=drive_link
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
"My New Knots"
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12Z4bBbLrCJw3dEzems9QOvp_G4hgBKJP?usp=drive_link
Happy Knotting
yChan
-
Hi dear all,
I have just updated my folders, enjoy and share.
"My New Bends" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing
"My Other Tying Methods of Some Known Knots" :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C8vtR72jJp9NjHiOR_qA9336We11Jt4g?usp=sharing
Happy Knotting
yChan